In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , where foreign aid decisions of the U.S. gove
ID: 338836 • Letter: I
Question
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, where foreign aid decisions of the U.S. government were challenged as a violation of the Endangered Species Act, because the Nile crocodile in Egypt could be harmed, the Supreme Court held:
the plaintiffs had standing because they had visited the area where the crocodiles lived
the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because there was no injury in fact
the Endangered Species Act was the wrong statute under which to bring this claim
the animals at issue were not endangered and so were not the proper subject of a lawsuit
although the plaintiffs had standing to sue, the issue of saving crocodiles was beyond the court's expertise
a.the plaintiffs had standing because they had visited the area where the crocodiles lived
b.the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because there was no injury in fact
c.the Endangered Species Act was the wrong statute under which to bring this claim
d.the animals at issue were not endangered and so were not the proper subject of a lawsuit
e.although the plaintiffs had standing to sue, the issue of saving crocodiles was beyond the court's expertise
Explanation / Answer
Answer: Option (B) - The plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because there was no injury in fact
Explanation: In order to have standing, there must be an Injury in fact suffered by the plaintiff which should be more than just an abstract complaint. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife where foreign aid decisions of the U.S. government were challenged as a violation of the Endangered Species Act, the Supreme Court held the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because there was no injury in fact.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.