Court Opinion

ID: 9489525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:17:52.837757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:34.672303
License: Public Domain

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the dissent that the court’s opinion imposes an unduly heavy burden on appellants to establish standing in a NEPA challenge. Quite simply, the court now requires that a litigant be able to establish the nature and likelihood of the environmental injury that it is the purpose of an environmental impact statement to identify. We had it essentially right in City of Los Angeles. Nevertheless, because I agree that appellants have failed to establish the necessary “nexus” between the tax credit and the injuries they foresee, I must concur in the judgment of the court. I say “must” because I regret that the court has adopted new criteria for the establishment of standing in NEPA cases that will erode the effectiveness of one of the most important environmental measures of the past generation.