Court Opinion

ID: 9817333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 04:15:09.329406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:10.892668
License: Public Domain

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment and Part I of the opinion of the court. Because Ashley Creek has failed to establish constitutional standing, I would leave for another day deciding whether the prudential standing doctrine forecloses any plaintiff asserting a purely economic injury from bringing suit under § 102 of NEPA. Compare Court Op., supra at 938 (“The injury in fact prong [of the Article III standing analysis] is determinative of this appeal.”) with Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 39 n. 19, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) (determination that petitioners lacked constitutional standing rendered consideration of the “zone of interest” test unnecessary).