Legal Opinion
New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 14, 2016No. Civil Action No. 2016-0149PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge
The question of who can speak for the animals has long vexed federal judges in animal-welfare cases. As a general matter, courts have concluded that well-established principles of Article III standing permit “human beings [to] invoke then-own injuries in fact to challenge harms done to animals[,]” Cass R. Sunstein, Standing For Animals (With Notes On Animal Rights), 47 UCLA L. Rev. 1333, 1343 (2000), but it can be “exceptionally confusing” to apply settled standing doc trine to determine when and under what circumstances an…
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Center for Bio Diversity v. EPACourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019
- Apton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- Abington Memorial Hospital v. BurwellDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
- Cal. Cattlemen's Ass'n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- Ctr. for Responsible Sci. v. GottliebCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.