Opinion ID: 4529763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Principles Governing Standing

Text: Article III of the United States Constitution restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts to the adjudication of “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. C ONST . art. III, § 2, cl. 1. To satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing by establishing “(1) an ‘injury-in-fact,’ (2) a sufficient ‘causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,’ and (3) a ‘likel[ihood]’ that the injury ‘will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157S58 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560S61 (1992)); accord Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, --- U.S. ----, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). “Put simply, a plaintiff must establish three elements: an injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1106 (10th Cir. 2007). 1 The Secretary does not challenge the Fish plaintiffs’ standing. Nevertheless, “[w]e have an obligation to assure ourselves of litigants’ standing under Article III.” Frank v. Gaos, --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046 (2019) (per curiam) (quoting DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 340 (2006)). We concluded that the Fish plaintiffs had standing in Fish I, see 840 F.3d at 716 n.5 (“We are confident on the current record that Plaintiffs–Appellees have standing to sue.”), and we see no reason to depart from that conclusion now. 20 We are focused on the first two of these requirements. As to the first, “[t]o establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560); accord People for the Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 852 F.3d 990, 996–97 (10th Cir. 2017). And as to the second, causation is established when the injury “is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560S61); accord Benham v. Ozark Materials River Rock, LLC, 885 F.3d 1267, 1273 (10th Cir. 2018) (“To satisfy the traceability requirement, the defendant’s conduct must have caused the injury.”). This requires proving that there is “a substantial likelihood that the defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff’s injury in fact.” Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1109–10 (quoting Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2005)). “We . . . review the district court’s rulings on standing de novo.” Niemi v. Lasshofer, 770 F.3d 1331, 1344 (10th Cir. 2014); accord People for the Ethical Treatment of Prop. Owners, 852 F.3d at 996. However, we review the factual findings underlying the district court’s standing determination for clear error. See Protocols, LLC v. Leavitt, 549 F.3d 1294, 1298 (10th Cir. 2008); see also McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Questions of 21 standing are . . . reviewed de novo, but underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”); ASPCA v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (same); Me. People’s All. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471 F.3d 277, 283 (1st Cir. 2006) (same).