If a plaintiff challenges a broad regulatory inventory program in federal lands and only asserts a general intent to visit, what is the likely standing result?

If a plaintiff challenges a broad regulatory inventory program in federal lands and only asserts a general intent to visit, what is the likely standing result?

• A. Yes, because they are U.S. citizens with an interest in the lands.
• B. Yes, because they intend to visit, which creates potential standing.
• C. No, because standing requires a specific final agency action affecting the plaintiff.
• D. No, because only environmental groups with affidavits have standing.

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is that standing requires a concrete injury in fact that is caused by and likely to be remedied by the defendant’s action, tied to a specific agency decision. Challenging a broad regulatory program in the abstract does not satisfy that requirement unless the plaintiff shows a present or imminent harm that is concrete and particular to them. In this scenario, the plaintiff only asserts a general intent to visit federal lands. A mere intention to visit, without any concrete plan or imminent harm resulting from a specific agency action, does not constitute an injury in fact. There is no final agency action directed at the plaintiff that has harmed or imminently will harm them, so the dispute isn’t ripe for judicial review. Because standing is not satisfied, the lawsuit cannot proceed. Why the other ideas don’t fit: simply being a U.S. citizen with an interest in the lands or having a plan to visit later does not by itself create a concrete injury or a final agency action affecting the plaintiff. A general interest or generalized grievance cannot ground standing. The notion that only environmental groups with affidavits have standing is incorrect; individuals can have standing if they can show a concrete injury, and affidavits are not a mandatory or exclusive gatekeeper for standing.

The main idea here is that standing requires a concrete injury in fact that is caused by and likely to be remedied by the defendant’s action, tied to a specific agency decision. Challenging a broad regulatory program in the abstract does not satisfy that requirement unless the plaintiff shows a present or imminent harm that is concrete and particular to them.

In this scenario, the plaintiff only asserts a general intent to visit federal lands. A mere intention to visit, without any concrete plan or imminent harm resulting from a specific agency action, does not constitute an injury in fact. There is no final agency action directed at the plaintiff that has harmed or imminently will harm them, so the dispute isn’t ripe for judicial review. Because standing is not satisfied, the lawsuit cannot proceed.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: simply being a U.S. citizen with an interest in the lands or having a plan to visit later does not by itself create a concrete injury or a final agency action affecting the plaintiff. A general interest or generalized grievance cannot ground standing. The notion that only environmental groups with affidavits have standing is incorrect; individuals can have standing if they can show a concrete injury, and affidavits are not a mandatory or exclusive gatekeeper for standing.