In Lujan V

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the court held that

A) the new regulation was in error as to the geographic scope of § 7(a) (2) , and an injunction should be entered requiring the secretary to promulgate a new regulation restoring the initial interpretation.
B) the injury-in-fact requirement had been satisfied by congressional conferral upon all persons of an abstract, self-contained, noninstrumental "right" to have the executive observe the procedures required by law, and thus the respondents did have standing.
C) the respondents lacked standing to bring this action, and the Court of Appeals erred in denying the summary judgment motion filed by the United States.
D) the case involved a political question that should not be resolved by the courts .