Supreme Court limits advocacy groups' standing to challenge public lands rules

Advocacy groups cannot challenge federal regulations on public lands unless they can prove they are themselves directly threatened by the proposed rules, the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision today. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices sided with the Bush administration, which argued that environmental groups do not have the standing to sue the Forest Service on land management policies that might contradict congressional action. The Summers v. Earth Island Institute case turned on whether the Forest Service violated the requirements of the 1992 Appeals Reform Act -- a law designed to ensure the agency considers public comment when it writes land and resource management plans -- when it enacted regulations that severely limited the rights of notice, appeals and public comment on certain projects that it deems to have little environmental impact. The majority sided with the Bush administration, finding that groups or individuals can challenge regulations in court only if they can show that they will be directly harmed by specific actions resulting from the regulations. "Except when necessary in the execution of that function, courts have no charter to review and revise legislative and executive action," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the opinion, referring to what he called the court's traditional role of preventing personal injury resulting from a legal violation. Because of this role, which Scalia called a "fundamental limitation," the burden of proof is on the groups or individuals seeking redress, Scalia said. Environmental groups had argued that they were personally affected because they were denied the chance to comment on certain Forest Service proposals, but Scalia said they did not show "concrete interest" and so failed to sufficiently prove direct and explicit harm. "The regulations under challenge here neither require nor forbid any action on the part of respondents," the decision says. "The standards and procedures that they prescribe for Forest Service appeals govern only the conduct of Forest Service officials engaged in project planning."...NY Times