Connection lost
Server error
LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Environmental groups sued the government over a rule limiting the Endangered Species Act’s reach abroad. The Supreme Court ruled they lacked standing, finding their claimed future injuries too speculative and not redressable by the court, thereby tightening the requirements for bringing suit in federal court.
Legal Significance: This case solidified the three-part test for Article III standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability) and raised the bar for plaintiffs by requiring a concrete and imminent injury. It established that Congress cannot statutorily grant standing to citizens who suffer no distinct, personal harm.
LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any action they fund or authorize is not likely to jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Initially, this consultation requirement was interpreted to apply to actions taken in foreign nations. In 1986, the Secretary promulgated a new regulation limiting the geographic scope of the consultation requirement to actions taken within the United States or on the high seas. Respondents, Defenders of Wildlife and other organizations, filed suit against the Secretary seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation was erroneous and an injunction to reinstate the original interpretation. To establish standing, respondents submitted affidavits from two members who had previously traveled to foreign countries to observe the habitats of endangered species. These members claimed they intended to return in the future and would be harmed by the lack of consultation on U.S.-funded projects affecting those species, such as the Aswan High Dam in Egypt and the Mahaweli project in Sri Lanka. However, the affiants had no concrete or immediate plans for their return trips. Respondents also argued for standing based on the ESA’s “citizen-suit” provision, which authorizes “any person” to sue over violations of the Act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff have standing to challenge a government regulation by asserting a non-imminent, speculative future injury and relying on a statutory ‘citizen-suit’ provision, without meeting the constitutional requirements of injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability?
No. The respondents lacked standing because they failed to establish either an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliq
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a plaintiff have standing to challenge a government regulation by asserting a non-imminent, speculative future injury and relying on a statutory ‘citizen-suit’ provision, without meeting the constitutional requirements of injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability?
Conclusion
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife significantly constrained access to federal courts, particularly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
Legal Rule
To satisfy the irreducible constitutional minimum of Article III standing, a plaintiff Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culp
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the role of standing as an essential Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) a