Bennett v. Spear
United States Supreme Court
520 U.S. 154 (1997)
The Fish and Wildlife Service (defendant) issued a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act finding that a Bureau of Reclamation irrigation project might harm two endangered fish species, along with an Incidental Take Statement letting the Bureau proceed if it followed the Opinion's recommendations; the Bureau agreed to comply. Two Oregon irrigation districts and rancher Brad Bennett and others (plaintiffs) sued, arguing the Biological Opinion violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act because it relied on flawed science and would harm their water-dependent businesses. The district court dismissed for lack of standing, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Whether plaintiffs whose economic interests, rather than environmental interests, are harmed by an Endangered Species Act biological opinion have standing to seek judicial review of that opinion under the ESA and the APA.