In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, where foreign aid decisions of the U.S. government were challenged as a violation of the Endangered Species Act, because the Nile crocodile in Egypt could be harmed, the Supreme Court held:
A) the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because there was no injury in fact
B) the plaintiffs had standing because they had visited the area where the crocodiles lived
C) the animals at issue were not endangered and so were not the proper subject of a lawsuit
D) although the plaintiffs had standing to sue, the issue of saving crocodiles was beyond the court's expertise
E) the Endangered Species Act was the wrong statute under which to bring this claim

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because they could not show a concrete and particularized injury in fact, and therefore lacked standing to sue. The potential harm to the Nile crocodile in Egypt was too speculative to meet the requirements for standing under the Endangered Species Act.

In Lujan V