## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly24,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
UT AH AS S OC I AT I ON OF C O U N T IES , on beh al f of i t s m em bers, Pl ai nt i ff, M OUNT AI N S T AT E S L E GAL F O U N D A T IO N , o n b e h a lf o f its m em bers, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t,
v. G E O R G E W
. B U SH , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas Pr es i dentof the U ni t ed S t a t e s , UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM ERI CA , J AM ES L. C O N N A U G H T O N , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas C hai rof the C ounci l on En v i r o n me n t a l Qua l i ty , GA LE N O R T O N , i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyas Secr et aryof the I nt er i or , and K A T H L E E N C L A R K E , D i r ect orof th e B u re a u o f

L a n d M a n a g e m e n t, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, SO U TH ER N U TA H W I LD ER N ESS A LLI A N CE , TH E W I LD ER N ESS S OC I E T Y, GR AND C ANYON T RU S T , E S CA L ANT E CA NYON O U T F IT T E R S , E S C A L A N T E ’S G R A N D ST A I R C A SE B & B I N N , and BO ULD ER M OU NTA I N LO DG E, N o. 04- 4132- 2 -

D efen dan t s- Int erveno rs A pp el l ees,

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - S T AT E OF UT AH, A m i cus C ur i ae.

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

U t ah ( D . C . N os . 2: 97- C V - 479 and 2:97- C V - 863)
J aym e R i t chi e ( W i l l i am P err yPendl eyand S. A m anda K oehl er , w i th heron the br i efs ) , M ount ai n St at es L egal Foundat i on, L akew ood, C ol or ado, forPl ai nt i ffA p p e llan t. To d d S. Ki m, Uni t e d St a t e s Dep a r t me n to f J u s t i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. ( Th o ma s L. Sans onett i , A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , Paul M
. W arner , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney and C ar l i e C hr i s t ens en, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , D i s tr i ctof U t ah, M i chae l A
. G hel et a and El l en D ur kee, A t t orney s , U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof Just i ce, W ashi ng t on , D
. C
. , w i th h i m on t he b ri ef), for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. St ephen H
. M
. B l och, Sout hern U t ah W i l dernes s A l l i ance , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah ( H ei di J
. M cI nt os h, Sout hern U t ah W i l dernes s A l l i ance , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, R i char d A
. D uncan, C r ai g S. C ol eman and Sar ah I
. W heel ock, Faegr e & B ens on, M i nn eapo l i s, M i nn esot a, w i th h i m on t he b ri ef), for D efen dan t s- Int erveno rs A pp el l ees. J
. M ark W ar d, A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al and M ark L
. Shur t l eff, U t ah A t t orney G e n e ra l, file d a b rie f

fo r a m icu s c u ria e S tate o f U tah o n b e h a lf

o f a p p e llan t.

B efor e KELLY , S EY M OUR , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.- 3-

EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.
I n thi s cas e, M ount ai n St at es L egal Foundat i on ( “M SL F”) chal l enges t he l egal i tyof the 1996 cr eat i on of the G r and St ai r cas e- E s cal ant e N at i onal M onum ent in so u th e rn U tah . B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t M S L F lac k e d sta n d in g to b rin g th is
c laim , w e d ism iss th e a p p e a l. I . BA CKGROUND A . The M onument O n Sept ember18, 1996, i n the mi ds tof hi s 1996 r e- el ect i on campai gn, Pr es i dentC l i nt on i s s ued a Pr es i dent i al Pr ocl amat i on es t abl i s hi ng the G r and St ai r cas e- E s cal ant e N at i onal M onum ent( the “M onum ent ”) , a s et - as i de of appr oxi m at el y1. 7 m i l l i on acr es of fe der al l and i n s outhern U t ah. See Pr ocl amat i on N o. 6920, 61 Fed. R eg. 50, 223 ( Sept
. 18, 1996)
. T he Pr ocl amat i on des cr i bed the M onum entar ea a s a “ge ol ogi c tr eas ur e” a nd an “out s t andi ng bi ol ogi cal r es our ce” thati ncl udes “w or l d cl as s pal eont ol ogi cal s i t es ” and i s “r i ch i n hum an hi s t ory . ” I d. at50, 223–224. A m ong the i t ems t o be pr ot ect ed i n the M onum entar e “a r ches and natur al br i dges ”; “r emar kabl e s peci m ens of petr i fi ed
w ood”; num er ous types of “[ e] xtr emel ys i gni fi cantfos s i l s ”; anci entN at i ve A m eri can “rock art ” and occu pati on si t es; “t rai l s, i nscri pti on s, [and ] ghostt ow ns” fr om M or m on pi oneer s ; “[f] r agi l e crypt obi ot i c crus t s ”; and “[ o] ver200 s peci es of bi r ds , i ncl udi ng bal d eagl es and per egr i ne fa l cons . ” I d. at50, 223–225.T he vi ew expr es s ed i n M onum ent al A bus e w as notunani m ous ; t he 1 m i nor i tyD emocr at i c Partym ember s of the C om m i t t ee on Resour ces i s s ued a (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 4- T he pr ocl amat i on cl ai m ed the author i tyt o es t abl i s h the M onum entbas ed on the A nti qu i t i es A ctof 1 90 6 (“A nti qu i t i es A ct ”), w hich provides: T h e P re sid e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s is a u th o r iz e d , in h is d isc re tio n , to decl ar e bypubl i c proc l amat i on hi s t or i c l andmar ks , hi s t or i c and prehi st ori c structures, and otherobj ect s of his t ori c or sci enti fi c i nter est thatar e s i tuat ed upon the l ands ow ned or contr ol l ed bythe G overnm ent of the U nit ed S t at es t o b e nati on al m on um ents , and m a y re se rv e as a partt her eof pa r cel s of lan d , the l i m i t s of w hi ch i n al l cas es s hal l be confi ned t o the s m al l es tar ea c om pat i bl e w i th the prope rcar e and m anage m entof the obj ect s t o be pr ot ect ed. A nt i qui t i es A ctof 1906 § 2, 16 U
. S. C
. § 431 ( 2000) ; s ee Pr ocl amat i on N o. 6920, 61 Fed. R eg. at50, 225 ( the Pr es i dent ’ s decl ar at i on thatthe M onum enti s s etas i de

“ b yth e a u th o ri ty v e s te d in m e b ys e c tio n 2 o f th e [ A n tiq u itie s A c t] ” ). E sta b lish m e n t o f

th e M o n u m e n t g e n e ra ted in ten se c riticism , inc lu d in g in
s om e C ongr es s i onal ci r cl es . N ot abl y , the maj or i tys t aff of the H ous e C om m i t t ee on R es our ces pr oduced tw o r eport s cr i t i cal of Pr es i dentC l i nt on’ s deci s i on. See “B ehi nd C l os ed D oor s : T he A bus e of Trus tand D i s cr et i on i n the Est abl i s hm entof the G ran d S tai rca se-E sca lante N ati o n al M o n u m en t. ” H
. R
. R ep . N o . 1 0 5 -D (C o m m . P ri n t 1 9 9 7 ); “M o n u m en tal A b u se: T h e C li n ton A d m inistrati o n ’s C ampai gn of M i s i nform at i on i n the Est abl i s hm entof the G r and St ai r cas e- E s cal ant e N at i onal M onum ent . ” H
. R
. R ep. N o. 105- 824 ( C om m . Pr i nt 1 9 9 8 ). 1(
. . . cont i nued) 1 r ebut t al r es pons e, s uppor t i ng Pr es i dentC l i nt on’ s act i on. D i s s ent i ng V i ew s : St aff R ep o rto n G ran d S tai rca se-E sca lante N M , at 1– 3 (O ct. 9 , 1 9 9 8 ).

- 5- D espi t e t hese an d o ther cr i t i ci sm s of t he M on um ent, si nce 1 99 6 C on gress has pas s ed s ever al pi ece s of l egi s l at i on thatr el at e t o the M onum ent . For exampl e, i n the A ut om obi l e N at i onal H er i t age A r ea A ct , Pub. L
. N o. 105- 355, 1 1 2 S tat. 3 2 4 7 (1 9 9 8 ), C o n g re ss m o d ified th e b o u n d a rie s o f th e M o n u m e n t to excl ude ce r t ai n U t ah t ow ns and t o t ake i n the “Eas tC l ark B ench” ar ea. I d. §§ 201–02. C ongr es s has al s o appr opr i at ed funds both foracqui r i ng m i ner al
r i g h t s wi th i n th e M o n u me n t , s e e Con s o l i d a t e d App r o p r i a t i o n s Act , 2 0 0 0 , Pu b
. L. N o. 106- 113, app. C , § 601, 113 St at . 1501 ( 1999) , and forcons truct i on and the devel opm entof pr ogr ams att he M onum ent . See, e. g. , S. R ep. N o. 106- 99, at 14–15 ( 1999) ; S. R ep. N o. 105- 227, at10, 13–14 ( 1998) ; H
. R
. R ep. N o. 105- 609, at 12 (19 9 8 ). B. Pro c e dur alBackg r ound I n J une 1997, aboutni ne mont hs aft ert he M onum entw as es t abl i s hed, t he U t ah A s s oci at i on of C ount i es ( “U A C ”) and the U t ah School s and I ns t i tut i onal T rus tL ands A dm i ni s tr at i on ( “SI T L A ”) eac h fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n U t ah fe der al di s tr i ctcourtas s ert i ng thatthe cr eat i on of the M onum entw as i l l egal
. See U t ah A s s ’ n of C ount i es v. B us h, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 ( D
. U t ah 2004)
. T heT he M S L F descri bes i t sel f as “a vo l un t ary , no n-profi t , pu bli c i nter est 2 corporat i on . . . [t hat] i s dedicat ed to i nd i vidual l i berty , t he ri gh tt o o w n an d u se p ro p e rt y , lim ite d g o v e rn m e n t, a n d th e f re e e n te rp ri s e s y s te m .”

- 6- A p p e lla n t in th is c a s e , M S L F , file d a s im ila r c o m p la in t in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 7
. Id
. 2 T he compl ai nt s named as defe ndant s t he Pr es i dent , t he U ni t ed St at es , and s ever al fede r al offi ci al s and age nci es ( col l ect i vel y , “D efe ndant s ”)
. T he pl ai nt i ffs
c h a llen g e d th e c re a tio n o f th e M o n u m e n t o n n u m e ro u s g ro u n d s, c laim in g th a t: ( 1) the A nt i qui t i es A cti s uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tvi ol at es t he del egat i on doctr i ne; ( 2) i n des i gnat i ng the M onum ent , Pr es i dentC l i nt on act ed ul tr a vi r es and i n vi ol at i on of the Pr opertyand Spendi ng C l aus es of the U ni t ed St at es C o n stitu tio n ; (3 ) P re sid e n t C lin to n v io late d th e A n tiq u iti e s A c t b yfa ili n g to des i gnat e “obj ect s of hi s t or i c ors ci ent i fi c i nt er es t ” and fai l i ng t o confi ne the M onum ent“t o t he s m al l es tar ea c om pat i bl e w i th the pr opercar e and management of the obj ect s t o be pr ot ect ed”; ( 4) Pr es i dentC l i nt on vi ol at ed the W i l dernes s A ct bycr eat i ng d e fa c to w i l dernes s , a pow err es erved t o C ongr es s ; ( 5) Pr es i dent Cl i n t o n v i o l a t e d E x e c u t i v e Or d e r1 0 3 5 5 , wh i c h r e q u i r e s t h a tl a n d b e wi th d r a wn bythe Secr et aryof the I nt er i or , nott he Pr es i dent ; and ( 6) t he D efe ndant s vi ol at ed the N at i onal E nvi r onm ent al Pol i cyA ct , t he Feder al L and Pol i cyand M anage m ent A ct , the Feder al A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee A ct , and the A nt i
- D efi ci encyA cti n the
cr eat i on of the M onum ent . See i d. at1176–77. G i ven the r el at ednes s of the compl ai nt s , the ac t i ons byU A C , SI T L A , and M SL F w er e s oon cons ol i dat ed;- 7-

how ever , SI T L A eventual l yr eac hed a s et t l ementw i th D efe ndant s and w as di s m i s s ed as a pl ai nt i ff. See i d. at 1176; T he U t ah School s and Land E xchange A ctof 1998, Pub. L
. N o. 105- 335, 112 St at . 3139 ( 1998) ( C ongr es s ’ s r at i fi cat i on of the s ett l ement )
. I n a pr i orr el at ed appe al , w e al l ow ed s ever al envi r onm ent al g ro u p s a n d b u sin e ss e s lo c a ted n e a r th e M o n u m e n t to in ter v e n e a s d e fe n d a n ts in the cons ol i dat ed ac t i on. See U t ah A s s ’ n of C ount i es v. C l i nt on, 255 F. 3d 1246, 1 2 5 6 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). I n J ul y1998, D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s ori n the al t ernat i ve for
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a lle g in g , in tera lia , tha t th e d istric t co u rt lac k e d su bjec tm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o hearthe ca s e. U t ah A s s ’ n of C ount i es , 316 F. Supp. 2d at 1 1 7 7
. S p ec ifi ca ll y , D efen d an ts cl aim ed that the c ase w as n o t r ipe, th at th e c o u rt had no j udi ci al author i tyt o r evi ew t he Pr es i dent ’ s act i on, and thatM SL F l acke d
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the M onum ent . I d. B oth r emai ni ng pl ai nt i ffs ( U A C and M S L F ) op p o sed D efen d an ts’ m o ti o n an d fil ed their ow n m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. I d
. I n an A pr i l 19, 2004 or der , t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfor D efe ndant s and deni ed the pl ai nt i ffs ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i ons . I d. at 1200–01. A s forD efe ndant s ’ cl ai m t hatM SL F l acke d s t andi ng, t he courts t at ed: th e Uni t e d St at es con c e d e s th a tUA C ha s s t a n d i n g , b u ti n s i s t s M SLF does n o t. . . . G i ven th[e] r el at i vel yl i ghtbur den [t o s how s t andi ng] at the pr es ents t age of

t he i ns t ant ca se an d r ecogni zi ng thatm anyof the cl ai m s of U A C and M SL F ar e i dent i cal or s i m i l ar , and i n the i nt er es tof j udi ci al economy the C our t w i l l not fur ther addr es s th e standi ngA l though t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt s as s er t ed numer ous chal l enges , on 3 appea l M SL F chal l enges onl ythe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatt he M onum ent d e sig n a tio n d id n o t v io late th e A n tiq u iti e s A c t o r th e W ild e rn e ss A c t. W e n o te, h o w ev er, th at w e h av e v ariou s o ther c o n ce rns w ith M S L F ’s 4 cl ai m s . Forexampl e, the ca us e of a ct i on on w hi ch M SL F r el i es i s notcl earfr om i t s br i efs
. A tor al ar gum ent , couns el forM SL F as s er t ed fort he fi r s tt i m e that M S L F w a s re lyin g o n a n im p lie d p ri v a te ri g h t o f a c tio n u n d e r t h e A n tiq u itie s A c t. G i ven ourconcl us i on on s t andi ng, w e nee d notdeci de w hethers uch a r i ghtof a c t i o n e x i s t s , a l th o u g h we n o t e th e s tr i c ts t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d b yt h e S u p r e me C our tfori m pl y i ng r i ght s of ac t i on. See G onzaga U ni v. v. D oe, 536 U
. S. 273, 2 9 0 (2 0 0 2 ) (s tatin g th a t C o n g re ss m u st p ro v id e fo r a n im p lied rig h t o f a c tio n “ in cl earand unambi guous t erm s ”) ; i d. at286 ( “[W ] her e the t extand s tructur e of a s t atut e pr ovi de no i ndi cat i on thatC ongr es s i nt ends t o cr eat e new i ndi vi dual ri g h ts, there is no b asis fo r a p ri v ate su it
. . . u n d er a n im p li ed ri g h t of ac ti o n . ”).

- 8- que s t i o n i n th i s Opi n i o n . W h i l e n o t e x p r e s s l y fi n d i n g th a t M SL F has st and i ng t o sue, the C ou rtw i l l add res s al l of the p a rties’ cl ai m s, i nc l ud i ng tho s e a dv a nc e d s ol e l ybyM SLF. Id. at 11 8 5 n . 6
. P roc ee d ing to the m erit s, the d istri ct co u rtrejected all o f U A C ’s and M SL F’ s chal l enges t o the cr eat i on of the M onum ent . I d. at1190–1200. M SL F t i m el yfi l ed a not i ce of appea l ; how ever , U A C — the onl yother
r emai ni ng pl ai nt i ff — di d notappea l the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on. I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , M SL F as s ert s both thati thad s t andi ng t o br i ng i t s chal l enge a nd thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o D efe ndant s on the
m er i t s of i t s cl ai m s . W e conc l ude thatM SL F l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng i t s act i on; 3 therefore, w e need no tadd res s i t s ar gu m ents on t he m eri t s. 4- 9-

A . N e c e ss ity o f a S ta n d in g A n a ly sis B eca us e the D efe ndant s conce ded bel ow t hatU A C had s t andi ng, t he di s t r i ct
courtdecl i ned “i n the i nt er es tof j udi ci al economy ” t o addr es s t he ques t i on of M SL F’ s s t andi ng. I d. at1185 n. 6. N everthel es s , M SL F’ s s t andi ng i s a cr i t i cal i s s ue i n thi s appea l beca us e onl yM SL F has appea l ed the di s tr i ctcourtdeci s i on. T he r equi r ementthata pl ai nt i ff ha ve s t andi ng “i s gr ounded i n A r t i cl e I I I of the U
. S. C ons t i tut i on, w hi ch r es tr i ct s fede r al courtadj udi cat i on t o actual cas es or
con trovers i es. ” U t ah v
. B abb i t t , 13 7 F
. 3d 11 93 , 12 01 (10t h C i r. 19 98 ); see al so San J uan C ount yv. U ni t ed St at es , 420 F. 3d 1197, 1203 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (“ A rticle I I I of the C ons t i tut i on l i m i t s the pow erof fe der al court s t o deci di ng ‘ cas es ’ and ‘cont rovers i es. ’ St and i ng t o sue . . . i s an aspect of the case-or- con trovers y
re q u ire m e n t.”) (q u o tatio n s, c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e h a v e n o ted th a t “[ s]ta n d in g to i nvoke the pow erof the fe der al court s i s nota mer e t echni cal hoop t hr ough w hi ch
everypl ai nt i ff mustpas s , butr atheri s ‘ a partof the bas i c cha r t erpr om ul gat ed by the Fr amer s of the C ons t i tut i on. ’ ” B abbi t t , 137 F. 3d at1202 ( quot i ng V al l ey For ge C hr i s t i an C ol l
. v. A m s . U ni t ed forSepar at i on of C hur ch & St at e, I nc. , 454 U
. S. 464, 476 ( 1982) )
. W her e, as her e, a pl ai nt i ff c hal l enges an ac t i on of the Pr es i dent , pr opereval uat i on of s t andi ng i s part i cul ar l yi m por t ant . See i d. ( “B eca us e Pl ai nt i ffs have i nvoked A r t i cl e I I I j ur i s di ct i on t o chal l enge the conduc t
o f th e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h o f g o v e rn m e n t, th e n e c e ss ityo f a c a se o r c o n tro v e rsy i s- 10-

o f p a rticu lar im p o rt.”). W e th e re fo re m u st a d d re ss w h e th e r M S L F h a d sta n d in g to bri ng i t s cl ai m s agai nstD efen dan t s. B. M SLF ’ s St andi ng A s w e re c e n tlyn o ted , “[ s]ta n d in g is d e ter m in e d a s o f th e tim e th e a c tio n is br ought
. ” N ova H eal th Sy s . v. G andy , 416 F. 3d 1149, 1154 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng Fr i e nd s of

the Earth, I nc . v. Lai dl a w Envt l
. Se r vs . ( TO C) , I nc . , 52 8 U. S. 167, 180 ( 2000) ( “[W ] e have an obl i gat i on t o as s ur e our s el ves t hat[pl ai nt i ff] had A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng atthe out s etof the l i t i gat i on. ”) ; Focus on the Fami l yv. P in e llas S u n c o a st T ra n sit A u th ., 3 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 5 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ A rticle I I I s t andi ng m us tbe det erm i ned as of the t i m e atw hi ch the pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai nt i s fi l ed. ”) ; C arrv. A l t a V er de I ndus
. , I nc. , 931 F. 2d 1055, 1061 ( 5th C i r . 1991) (“ A s w ith a ll q u e stio n s o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n e x c e p t m o o tn e ss , sta n d in g is determ i ned as of t he d at e of the fi l i ng of the com plai nt. ”))
. T herefore, w e m ust
e v a lu a te M S L F ’s s tan d in g a s o f th e tim e it file d its c o m p lain t. 1. A s s oc i at i ona l s t andi ng M S L F is re ly in g o n th e d o c trin e o f a ss o c iatio n a l sta n d in g in th is c a se a n d is notas s ert i ng s epar at e i ndepende nti nj uryt o i t s el f. T hus , beca us e M SL F i s an
a ss o c iatio n b rin g in g su it o n b e h a lf o f its m e m b e rs, it co u ld o n lyh a v e sta n d in g if “( a) i t s m ember s w oul d otherw i s e have s t andi ng t o s ue i n thei row n r i ght ; ( b) t he i nt er es t s i ts eeks t o pr ot ectar e germ ane t o the or gani zat i on’ s purpos e; and ( c) nei therthe cl ai m as s ert ed nort he r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es t he part i ci pat i on of- 11-

i ndi vi dual m ember s i n the l aw s ui t . ” H untv. W as h. St at e A ppl e A dver
. C om m ’ n, 4 3 2 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 2

– 4 3 (1 9 7 7 ). A lth o u g h th is q u o ta tio n re fe rs to “ m e m b e rs ,” p lu ra l, i f

e v e n o n e m e m b e r o f

th e a ss o c iatio n w o u ld h a v e h a d sta n d in g to su e in hi s orherow n r i ght , thati s s uffi ci ent . See W ar th v. Sel di n, 422 U
. S. 490, 511 (1 9 7 5 ) ( “ T h e a s s o c ia tio n m u s t a lle g e th a t its m e m b e rs , orany one of them , are
s uffe r i ng i m m edi at e orthr eat ened i nj uryas a r es ul tof the cha l l enged a ct i on. ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

2. I ndi vi duals t andi ng I n eval uat i ng w hetherthe fi r s tpr ong of as s oci at i onal s t andi ng has been
m e t, w e a sk w h e th e r a n ym e m b e r o f M S L F w o u ld h a v e h a d sta n d in g in d iv id u a lly to b rin g th e se c laim s. T h e re q u ire m e n ts fo r a n in d iv id u a l to h a v e sta n d in g in fede r al courtar e thr eefol d. Fi r s t , th e p l a i n t i ff mus t h a v e s u ffe r e d a n “ i nj u ry i n fa c t ”

– a n i nvas i on of a l egal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es tthat i s both ( a) concr et e and pa r t i cul ar i zed and ( b) ac tual ori m m i nent , notconj ectur al orhypothet i cal
. Second, ther e mustbe a c aus al connec t i on betw een thati nj ur yand the c h a llen g e d a c tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t – th e inju ry m u s t b e “ fa irly tr ace abl e” t o the defendant , and notthe r es ul tof the i ndepende ntact i on of s om e third p art y . Fi nal l y , i tm us tbe l i kel y , notm er el ys pecul at i ve, th a t a fa v o ra b le ju d g m e n t w ill r e d re s s th e p la in tiff ’s inju ry. N o v a H ea lth S y s. , 4 1 6 F
. 3 d at 11 5 4 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). W e the refo re
m u st e v a lu a te w h e th e r a n yin d iv id u a l M S L F m e m b e rs, a t th e tim e M S L F filed its
com plai nt, see i d. , had suffered a redress i ble i njurycaused byD efen dan t s.- 12- 3. B urden of

proof T he partyas s ert i ng j ur i s di ct i on — her e, M SL F — has t he bur den of
es t abl i s hi ng t he el ement s of s t andi ng. I d. ( “A s t he partys eeki ng t o i nvoke fe der al j ur i s di ct i on, the pl ai nt i ff .
. . has t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng eac h of the[] t hr ee el ement s of A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. ”)
. B eca us e s t andi ng w as chal l enged i n a mot i on that w as al t ernat i velydesi gn at ed as a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent, M S L F “m ust

‘ s etfor th’ byaff

i davi torot herevi dence ‘ s peci fi c fa ct s , ’ w hi ch forpurpos es of the s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on w i l l be t aken t o be true. ” Luj an v. D efe nder s of W i l dl i fe, 504 U
. S. 555, 561 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o N ova H eal th Sy s . , 416 F. 3d at1154 ( “A tt he s um m aryj udgm ents t age, t he pl ai nt i ff
m us ts etfor th byaff

i davi torot herevi dence s peci fi c fa ct s t hat , i f t aken a s t rue,
es t abl i s h eac h of the[] el ement s [of s t andi ng]
. ”) ; C f. U ni t ed St at es v. H ay s , 515 U .S . 7 3 7 , 7 4 3 (1 9 9 5 ) (“ W e h a v e . . . m a d e c lea r th a t itis th e b u rd e n o f th e p a rty
w h o se e k s th e e x e rc ise o f ju risd ictio n in h is fa v o r c lea rlyto a lleg e fa c ts demonstr at i ng thathe i s a pr operpartyt o i nvoke j udi ci al r es ol ut i on of the d isp u te. A n d w h e n a c a se h a s p ro c e e d e d to fin a l ju d g m e n t af ter a trial, a s th is
cas e has , thos e fa ct s ( i f contr overt ed) m us tbe s uppor t ed ade quat el ybyt he evidence ad du ced at tri al t o av oid di sm i ssal on st and i ng groun ds. ”) ( qu otat i on s, ci t at i on s om i t t ed). M oreove r, M S L F con cedes o n ap peal that s t and i ng i n thi s case sh o u ld n o w b e e v a lu a ted u n d e r su m m a ryju d g m e n t sta n d a rd s b e c a u se itW e not e thatthe voi di ngo f M r. W o o d ’s m in in g c laim s, a lth o u g h c lea rly 5 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 13- ac k n o w ledg ed itis r eq u ir ed to “d em o n str ate sp ec ifi c fac ts ne ce ssaryto su p p o rt th e c la im o f

inju ry.” 4 . A n a ly sis
a. A ffi davi t of

D on W ood M SL F cl ai m s thati thas es t abl i s hed the “s peci fi c fa ct s ” nec es s aryt o s how ind ividu al st an d ing thro u g h an M S L F m em b er — sp ec ifi ca ll y , D o n W o o d
. It p o i n t s t o t h e a ffi d a v i to f M r . W o o d , whi c h s t a t e s t h a th e i s a me mbe ro f M SLF
a n d th a t h is b u sin e ss , S o u th w e st S to n e , m in e d a lab a ste r f ro m m in e s o n w h a t is
now M onum entl and fornear l y20 y ear s . A ppr oxi m at el ys i xtyt o s eventyper cent of Sout hw es tSt one’ s al abas t ers al es came fr om t hr ee s uch mi nes . I n 1998, t he B ur eau of

L and M anage m entvoi ded Southw es tSt one’ s t hr ee mi ni ng cl ai m s for fai l ur e t o compl yw i th annual fi l i ng r equi r ement s . B eca us e the M onum enthad b e e n e sta b lish e d in th e a re a tw o y e a rs e a rlier , S o u th w e st S to n e w a s u n a b le to
re file its m in in g c laim s, th e lo ss o f w h ich p u t S o u th w e st S to n e o u t o f b u sin e ss in 1999. M r . W ood m ai nt ai ns i n hi s aff i davi tt hat“[b] utfort he cr eat i on of the M o n u me n t , ” h e a n d h i s b u s i n e s s p a r tn e r“ wo u l d s i mp l yh a v e r e fi l e d t h e c l a i ms and pr es erved ourbus i nes s . ” M SL F ar gues t hatt hi s i nabi l i tyt o r efi l e the mi ni ng
c laim s b yM r. W o o d is th e inju ry -in -fa c t an d th a t “M r. W o o d o w e s th e lo ss o f h is
e n tir e b u s in e s s a n d liv e lih o o d to th e d e s ig n a tio n o f th e M o n u m e n t.” 5(
. . . cont i nued) 5 i nj ur i ous t o hi s bus i nes s , coul d notbe us ed t o es t abl i s h s t andi ng beca us e i tw as n o t cau sed b yD efen d an ts’ ac ti o n s in d esig n ati n g the M o n u m en t, b u t byM r. W ood’ s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th fi l i ng r equi r ement s . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. L ocke, 471 U
. S. 84, 107 ( 1985) ( “The[] pr opertyl os s w as one appe l l ees coul d have avoi ded w i th m i ni m al bur den; i tw as thei rfai l ur e t o fi l e on t i m e- - notthe ac t i on of C o n g ress--th at ca u sed the p rop ertyri g h t t o b e e x ti n g u ishe d
. ”). D ism iss a l b a se d o n a sta tu te o f lim itatio n c a n o c c u r w h e re th e c o m p lain t is 6 fi l ed t oo l ong after th e inju ryo c c u rs. H e re , w e a re p re se n ted w ith th e o p p o site situ a tio n : M S L F filed its c o m p lain t before th e a ss e rte d inju ryo n w h ich it atte m p ts t o r el yoccurr ed. A l though thi s bas i s fordi s m i s s al i s ar guabl ya pec ul i arone, es peci al l yi f M r . W ood’ s l os s w as an otherw i s e s uffi ci enti nj ur y - i n- fac t( an i s s ue w e do no tadd res s) , the p eculi ari tyi s due solel yt o M S L F ’s pos thoc r el i ance on an injurythat h ad n o t eve n o cc u rred w h en M S L F fil ed it s co m p lai n t. M r. W o o d ’s loss sim p lyco u ld n o t hav e b ee n p art of the “ lega l harm ” a ll eg ed in M S L F ’s compl ai ntbeca us e i thad noty ethappene d. W e not e thati n i t s r epl ybr i ef, M SL F ar gues t hat“M r . W ood w as ‘ i nj ur ed’ (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 14- b. T i m i ng probl em T h e re is a g lar in g p ro b lem w ith M S L F ’s r e lian c e o n th is a lleg e d inju ryto M r . W ood, even t aki ng al l of the fa ct s al l eged i n hi s aff i davi tas t rue, N ova H eal th Sy s . , 416 F. 3d at1154. M SL F’ s C om pl ai nti n thi s act i on w as fi l ed on N o v e m b e r 5 , 1 9 9 7 , a n d its A m e n d e d C o m p la in t w a s file d o n D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 9 7
. M r. W o o d ’s m ining claim s, h o w ev er, w ere n o t vo ided u n ti l 19 9 8
. T h u s, M r. W oo d’s al l eged i njury— the inabi l i tyt o refi l e his t hree vo i ded m i ning cl ai m s —
c o u ld n o t h a v e o c c u rre d u n til af t ert he “t i m e th[i s ] act i on [w a] s br ought
. ” N ova H eal th Sy s . , 416 F. 3d at1154. B eca us e s t andi ng i s det erm i ned as of the t i m e of the fi l i ng of the compl ai nt , M r . W ood’ s al l eged i nj urycannots erve as a bas i s for M SL F’ s s t andi ng i n t hi s cas e. 6(
. . . cont i nued) 6 beca us e he w as depr i ved of hi s s t atut oryr i ghtt o ent erupon and l ocat e addi t i onal m i ni ng cl ai m s w i thi n the l ands w i thdr aw n bydes i gnat i on of the M onum ent . ” B eca us e the i nabi l i tyt o l ocat e new m i nes happene d atthe t i m e the M onum ent w as cr eat ed, t hi s al l eged i nj uryw oul d nots eem t o s uffe rfr om the s ame t i m i ng pr obl em as M r . W ood’ s i nabi l i tyt o re fil e h i s v o i d e d c l a i ms . Ho we v e r , we d e c lin e to a d d re s s th is is s u e s in c e it w a s ra is e d fo r t h e fir s t tim e in a re p ly b ri e f
. S tu m p v . G a tes , 2 1 1 F .3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In a n ye v e n t, th is c laim is nots uppor t ed byt he evi dence
. A l though M SL F st at es thatt he expe r i ence of M r . W ood i s “butone 7 poi gnantexampl e of the i nj ur i es s uffe r ed byM SL F m ember s i n the M onum ent ar ea a nd t hr oughoutU t ah and the Sout hw es tas a r es ul tof the M onum ent des i gnat i on, ” i tgi ves no others peci fi cs of thos e i nj ur i es and w e have found none i n the r ecor d. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatM SL F has notes t abl i s hed an i nj ury , w e nee d not 8 addr es s the s econd a nd thi r d pr ongs of i ndi vi dual s t andi ng ( caus at i on and r edr es s i bi l i ty )
. A nd, beca us e M SL F has nots how n “s peci fi c fa ct s ” es t abl i s hi ng thatanyof i t s m ember s w oul d have s t andi ng t o br i ng thi s act i on, w e nee d not addr es s the s econd a nd thi r d pr ongs of as s oci at i onal s t andi ng.

- 15- c. C oncl usi on B e c a u se M S L F re lies so lelyo n M r. W o o d ’s d e c lar a tio n fo r th e “ sp e c ific fa cts” n ec essa ryto su p p o rtit s stan d ing all eg ati o n s, o u r co n clus ion that M r. 7 W ood’ s aff

i davi tdoes notdemonstr at e an i nj ury - i n- fac t“as of the t i m e the ac t i on [w a] s br ought ” means thatM SL F has notm eti t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng
cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng t o br i ng t hi s act i on. 8 I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e D I SM I SS t hi s appea l on the gr ound t hat M SL F has notm eti t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng the el ement s of s t andi ng.