Document: 520 U.S. 154117 S.Ct. 1154137 L.Ed.2d 281 Brad BENNETT, et al., Petitioners,v.Michael SPEAR al. No. 95-813. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Nov. 13, 1996. Decided March 19, 1997. Syllabus * The Endangered Species Act 1973 (ESA) requires Secretary Interior to specify animal species that are "threatened'' or "endangered'' and designate their "critical habitat,'' 16 U.S.C. §1533, federal agencies ensure any action they authorize, fund, carry out is not likely jeopardize a listed adversely modify its critical habitat, §1536(a)(2). If an agency determines proposed may affect such species, it must formally consult with Fish Wildlife Service, which provide written statement (the Biological Opinion) explaining how will habitat. §1536(b)(3)(A). Service concludes result in jeopardy adverse habitat modification, §1536(a)(2), Opinion outline "reasonable prudent alternatives'' believes avoid consequence, no modification result, if offers reasonable alternatives, issue (known as "Incidental Take Statement'') specifying terms conditions under take species. §1536(b)(4). After Bureau Reclamation notified operation Klamath Irrigation Project might two endangered fish, issued Opinion, concluding long-term project was identifying alternative maintenance minimum water levels on certain reservoirs. would operate compliance Opinion. Petitioners, irrigation districts receiving operators ranches those districts, filed this against respondents, Service's director regional directors Secretary, claiming determination imposition violated §1536, constituted implicit for violation §1533(b)(2)'s requirement designation's economic impact be considered. They also claimed actions Administrative Procedure (APA), prohibits arbitrary, capricious, abuse discretion, otherwise accordance law. 5 §706(2)(A). District dismissed complaint, petitioners lacked standing because asserted "recreational, aesthetic, commercial interests'' did fall within zone interests sought protected by ESA. Appeals affirmed, holding "zone test-which plaintiff's grievance arguably regulated statutory provision constitutional guarantee invoked suit-limits class persons who obtain judicial review only APA, but ESA's citizen-suit provision, §1540(g); plaintiffs alleging interest preservation Held: Petitioners have seek Pp. ____-____. (a) erred zone-of-interests test bring claims provision. prudential general application, see, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 737, 751, 104 3315, 3324, 82 556, applies unless expressly negated Congress. By providing "any person commence civil suit,'' §1540(g)(1) negates test. quoted phrase authorization remarkable breadth when compared language Congress ordinarily uses. Court's readiness term person'' at face value greatly augmented interrelated considerations legislation's overall subject matter environment §1540(g)'s obvious purpose encourage enforcement so-called "private attorneys general.'' See Trafficante Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 205, 210-211, 93 364, 367-368, 34 415. formulation all §1540(g) causes action, including asserting overenforcement §1533; there textual basis saying formulation's expansion requirements environmentalists alone. (b) Three grounds advanced Government- (1) fail meet Article III requirements; (2) does authorize types advanced; (3) unavailable APA-do support affirmance. Petitioners' complaint alleges injury fact fairly traceable redressable favorable ruling and, thus, meets stage litigation. Their §1533 claim clearly reviewable §1540(g)(1)(C), authorizes suit alleged failure perform nondiscretionary act duty §1533. §1536 obviously subsection (C), however. Nor (A), injunctive "who violation'' ESA regulations. Viewed context entire statute, (A)'s reference "violation'' cannot interpreted include Secretary's maladministration Act. nonetheless APA. preclude review, suffer harm erroneous plainly whose forms see Lujan National Federation, 497 871, 110 3177, 111 695. In addition, constitutes final APA purposes. It marks consummation agency's decisionmaking process, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 103, 113, 68 431, 437, 92 L.Ed. 568. from "legal consequences flow,'' Port Boston Marine Terminal Assn. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 62, 71, 91 203, 209, 27 accompanying Incidental Statement alter legal regime subject, authorizing (but if) complies prescribed conditions. Franklin Massachusetts, 505 788, 112 2767, 120 636, Dalton Specter, 511 462, 114 1719, 128 497, distinguished. 63 F.3d 915, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Gregory K. Wilkinson, Riverside, CA, petitioners. Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, DC, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 This challenge biological (ESA), 87 Stat. 884, amended, §1531 seq., concerning Reclamation, project's varieties fish. question decision whether petitioners, competing other water, ESA, §1540(g)(1), 80 392, §701 seq. 2 promulgate regulations listing animals specified criteria, habitat.'' further each "insure authorized, funded, carried . continued existence threatened destruction determined critical.'' proposes engage formal consultation delegate ibid.; 50 CFR §402.14 (1995), after "jeopardize [listed] [critical habitat],'' Additionally, alternatives "impact incidental taking species,'' measures [Service] considers necessary appropriate minimize impact,'' setting forth "the complied Federal implement [those measures].'' 3 Project, one oldest reclamation schemes, series lakes, rivers, dams canals northern California southern Oregon. undertaken pursuant 1902, 32 388, 43 §371 Feb. 9, 1905, 33 714, administered jurisdiction. 1992, Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris), fish were 1988, 53 Fed.Reg. 27130-27133 (1988). concluded ""long-term shortnose suckers.''' App. Pet. Cert. 3. identified believed jeopardy, included Clear Lake Gerber later intended 4 Oregon receive present Interior. Neither nor officials named defendant. asserts "has been following essentially same procedures storing releasing reservoirs throughout twentieth century,'' id., 36; " [t]here scientifically commercially available evidence indicating populations suckers declined, declining, decline result'' Bureau's 37; restrictions lake imposed beneficial effect reservoirs,'' 39; "will abide Opinion,'' 32. three relief relevant here. first second allege respect reservoirs, ensuing levels, §7 §1536. third elevations suckers, §4 §1533(b)(2), failed into consideration impact.1 Each states APA's prohibition "arbitrary, law.'' 6 petitioners' use related waterways aesthetic purposes, well primary sources water'' "irreparably damaged'' complained of, 34, delivery "recommended'' "adversely substantially reducing quantity water,'' 40. essence, declares suckers. 7 lack do ESA.'' 28. Ninth Circuit affirmed. Bennett Plenert, 915 (1995). held limits §1540(g), "only ESA,'' F.3d, 919 (emphasis original). We granted certiorari. 517 ____, 116 1316, 134 469 (1996). 8 Court, raise questions: first, rule known brought ESA; second, so, notwithstanding vindicate rather than environmental. Government has made effort defend reasoning Appeals. Instead, advances affirmance: Constitution; petitioners; constitute action. II 9 turn found dispositive: virtue Although contend lie both we look permit recover litigation costs, §1540(g)(4), independently "there adequate remedy court,'' §704. 10 "involves limitations federal-court jurisdiction exercise.'' Warth Seldin, 422 490, 498, 95 2197, 2205, 45 343 (1975) (citing Barrows Jackson, 346 249, 73 1031, 97 1586 (1953)). To satisfy "case'' "controversy'' III, "irreducible minimum'' standing, plaintiff must, generally speaking, demonstrate he suffered "injury fact,'' "fairly traceable'' defendant, redressed decision. Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560-561, 2130, 2136-2137, 119 351 (1992); Valley Forge Christian College Americans Separation Church State, Inc., 454 464, 471-472, 102 752, 757-759, 70 700 (1982). addition immutable judiciary adhered set principles bear standing.'' Id., 474-475, S.Ct., 760. Like counterparts, these "judicially self-imposed exercise jurisdiction,'' 556 (1984), "founded concern about proper-and properly limited-role courts democratic society,'' Warth, supra, 2205; unlike can modified abrogated Congress, U.S., 501, 2206. Numbered among doctrine particular case: suit. Allen, 3324; Forge, 759-760. 11 employed Association Data Processing Organizations, Camp, 397 150, 90 827, 25 184 (1970). There, data processors invalidate Comptroller Currency national banks sell processing services ground violated, inter alia, Bank Corporation 1962, 76 1132, prohibited bank service corporations engaging activity performance banks.'' had banks' data-processing competitors without §4. reversing, stated applicable "whether complainant statute question.'' Processing, 153, 830. companion case, Barlow Collins, 159, 832, 192 (1970), applied suits cases involving administrative Dennis Higgins, 498 439, 449, 865, 969 (1991); Stock Exchange State Tax Comm'n, 429 318, 320-321, n. 3, 599, 602-603, 514 (1977); Note, A Defense "Zone Interests'' Standing Test, 1983 Duke L.J. 447, 455-456, nn. 40-49 (1983) (cataloging lower court decisions), specifically clear, however, varies according provisions law issue, so what comes purposes obtaining ""generous provisions''' Clarke Securities Industry Assn., 479 400, 16, 107 750, 757, 757 (1987) (quoting 156, 831). 12 legislates background our doctrine, negated. Block Community Nutrition Institute, 467 340, 345-348, 2450, 2453-2455, 81 270 (1984). Cf. Associated Gen. Contractors Cal., Carpenters, 459 519, 532-533, 28, 103 897, 906, 74 723 (1983). case pertinent part margin,2 (or, perhaps more accurately, expands interests). think does. operative portion says suit''-an Even some environmental statutes, used restrictive formulations, [any person] having affected,'' §1365(g) (Clean Water Act); 30 §1270(a) (Surface Mining Control Act) (same); [a]ny suffering wrong,'' 15 §797(b)(5) (Energy Supply Environmental Coordination valid affected whenever controversy,'' 42 §9124(a) (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act). And contexts environment, often even restrictive. statutes unfair trade practices matters, example, authorized injured his business property,'' §2305(c); §72 (same), "competitors, customers, subsequent purchasers,'' §298(b). 13 Our considerations: legislation (a common interest) general''-evidenced elimination usual amount-in-controversy diversity-of-citizenship requirements, recovery costs (including expert witness fees), reservation right refusal pursue initially intervene later. Given factors, conclusion expanded follows fortiori 415 (1972), full extent permitted Civil Rights 1968 discriminatory housing practice'' sue violations There relied scheme rely private 367-368. here clearer, makes intent everyman plausible. 14 true seeking prevent application them. But §1540(g)-not violators restrictions, underenforcement As shall discuss below, favor covers failures responsibilities; therefore several upon contends affirm dismissal Because dispositive, reached below. respondent entitled, judgment supported record, Ponte Real, 471 491, 500, 105 2192, 85 553 (1985); Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Epstein, 516 5, 873, 880, raised fully briefed argued here; deem discretion consider them now leave disposition remand. Government's contention fails III. requires: fact''-an invasion judicially cognizable concrete particularized actual imminent, conjectural hypothetical; causal connection between conduct of-the challenged independent party before court; likely, opposed merely speculative, 2136-2137. 17 allege, things, currently Lake, 32, [t]he [petitioners] contends, allegations fact'' element diminution aggregate amount necessarily establish (absent information allocation practices) less water. overlooks, proposition "must way bears burden proof, i.e., manner degree required successive stages litigation.'' 561, 2136. Thus, while "set forth'' affidavit "specific facts,'' survive motion summary judgment, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e), ultimately contested facts adduced trial, [a]t pleading stage, factual resulting defendant's suffice, dismiss "presum[e] embrace specific claim.''' 2137 889, 3189, 695 (1990)). allegation reduced thereby, easy presume injured-for distribution reduction pro rata customers. requisite fact. 18 contests contending neither "redressable'' ruling, "action agency'' Bureau) retains ultimate responsibility determining go forward. §402.15(a) (1995) ("Following issuance opinion, determine proceed light section obligations opinion''). "If injury,'' proximate cause (as yet unidentified) regarding volume allocated itself.'' Brief Respondents 22. wrongly equates defendant very last step chain causation. While, said, suffice ""th[e] [of] court,''' 2136 added) Simon Eastern Ky. Welfare Organization, 426 26, 41-42, 96 1917, 1926, 48 450 (1976)), exclude produced determinative coercive someone else. 19 own account, theoretically serves "advisory function,'' 51 19928 (1986), reality powerful agency: 20 "The presupposes play central role typically based record insofar issues concerned -[A] chooses deviate recommendations contained "articulat[ing] reasons disagreeing conclusions opinion,' 19,956 (1986). government's experience, rarely choose species.'' 20-21. 21 What concession omits say, moreover, articulate disagreement (which investigations expertise), runs substantial risk (inexpert) wrong. sort rendered alters subject. When "offers Statement''-a specifying, "measures [the action's species]'' "terms [such] measures.'' Any "shall considered concerned.'' §1536(o)(2). Opinion's "take'' long respects conditions.'' technically free disregard peril (and employees), knowingly "takes'' criminal penalties, imprisonment. §§1540(a) (authorizing fines up $25,000 per penalties $50,000 imprisonment year); Babbitt Sweet Home Chapter, Communities Great Ore., 515 115 2407, 2418, 132 597 (upholding interpretation significant degradation). 22 itself is, put mildly, keenly aware virtually opinions. begins instructing reader "such statement,'' warning described below nondiscretionary, taken Bureau].'' 92-93. this, given had, until operated century, difficult conclude met burden-which relatively modest litigation-of "likely'' redressed-i.e., impose level restrictions-if aside. B 23 Next, claims. portions 24 behalf- (A) enjoin person, governmental instrumentality chapter regulation authority thereof; 26 ..... (C) [of Commerce Interior] where 1533 title discretionary Secretary.'' §1540(g)(1). 28 argues "in PCS1 29 Turning (C): clear unambiguous. claims, assert However, above, implicitly complying mandate §1533(b)(2) "tak[e] impact, area come (C). seeks appealing limitation enforced "discretionary obligation discretion: make revisions thereto, best scientific —(Emphasis added.) followed that, except extinction benefits exclusion outweigh Ibid. added). categorical arriving decision, available.'' rudimentary substance confer ignore decisionmaking. SEC Chenery 318 80, 94-95, 454, 462-463, 626 (1943). Since omission complain §1540(g)(1)(C). PCS2 31 Having left implementing enforcing meaning view, §1540(g)(1)(A) means parties enforce substantive parties-both entities agencies-but avenue implementation statute. agree. opposite simply incompatible compel him That superfluous-and, worse still, careful nullified-if ""cardinal principle construction' [that] [i]t "to give effect, possible, every clause word statute' emasculate section.'' Menasche, 348 528, 538, 75 513, 520, 99 615 (1955) NLRB Jones Laughlin Steel 301 1, 30, 57 615, 621, 893 (1937), Montclair Ramsdell, 147, 152, 391, 395, 431 (1883)). Application us duties administrator Moreover, uses elsewhere most unlikely refer officers employees administering Section 1540(a), violates ESA],'' entrusts power "remi[t] mitigat[e]'' penalty. know precedent applying administer by) meant liability §1540(b), crime [to] violat[e] §1540(e)(3), personnel "make arrests warrant warrantless arrest delegates "knowingly'' failing available. Finally, interpreting errors wholesale abrogation "final action'' requirement. procedural default, resulted form lawsuit. loathe produce extraordinary clearest direction, hardly 35 §1540(g)(1)(A)'s §1540(g)(1)(A). IV 36 foregoing analysis establishes principal claim, comply complete task, inquire Act, aside findings, law,'' §706. 37 No maintainable) exclusive, supplanting provided terms, provides §704, universally "except that- review; committed §701(a). Nothing precludes detect anything suggesting so. §1536(a)(2) fly text, imperative "shall.'' 38 serve gravamen complaint. 886, 3187. classic 830: here, since directly overarching preservation. error. 39 Whether "arguably statute'' (here, preservation), relies. understand could cases. itself, require plaintiffs' sufficient anti-competition Act-the violated. 155-156, 830-831. said utmost clarity complains falls interests' '' 883, 3186 Courier Conference Postal Workers, 517, 523-524, 913, 917-918, 1125 (1991) (same). 40 covered requires, "use available,'' show detrimental protect issuing unsubstantiated findings contrary defendants acted arbitrarily available'' implemented haphazardly, speculation surmise. While doubt advance goal preservation, readily apparent another objective (if indeed one) needless dislocation zealously unintelligently pursuing objectives. explicit evidenced §1536(h), exemption §1536(a)(2)'s no-jeopardy alternatives. believe "best data'' similarly intended, least part, uneconomic (because erroneous) determinations. victims mistake protects. 41 theory action,'' conclusively allocated: "Whatever practical likelihood [Bureau] adopt higher levels) legally obligated decided nothing constrain [Bureau's] should potential users.'' 33. confuses separate already resolved Government, Part III-A). matter, satisfied "final'': First, mark "consummation'' 568 (1948)-it tentative interlocutory nature. "rights determined,'' 203 uncontested because, discussed crucial different relies, 636 (1992), (1994). former Commerce's presentation President report tabulating results decennial census; premised observation "no direct consequences'' served "more like recommendation binding determination.'' 798, 2774. latter submission base closure Base Closure Realignment Commission; President, absolute accept reject 470, 1725. Unlike reports Dalton, purely advisory rights actors, appreciable consequences. 44 *** affirming none precluded remaining 46 reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 47 ordered. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. fourth claim: de facto designation Policy 1969 (NEPA), 83 853, §4332(2)(C), preceded preparation assessment. Appeals' challenged. Except paragraph (to eleventh amendment Constitution), Secretary. district jurisdiction, regard controversy citizenship parties, regulation, order duty, (2)(A) commenced subparagraph (1)(A) section- (i) prior sixty days notice violator regulation; (ii) penalty section; (iii) diligently prosecuting redress regulation. (3)(B) party, Attorney General, request behalf right. (4) court, subsection, award attorney fees) appropriate.'' §1540(g).

Category: 8