Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immediately after the decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute was announced on March 3, 2009, numerous commentators quickly concluded that the Supreme Court had created additional jurisdictional obstacles for environmental plaintiffs to prove standing in cases involving procedural injuries. If this assessment proves correct, more restricted court access could drastically weaken the federal system of environmental protection. For over three decades, the enforcement of federal environmental statutes and regulations has depended critically on the ability of citizens to bring lawsuits — which Congress has recognized, and enabled, by creating “citizen-suit” provisions in a large number of environmental statutes. If the Supreme Court in Summers has in fact made the standing inquiry more onerous for citizen plaintiffs, this decision could deliver a blow to the citizen suit device from which environmental litigation might not recover easily. This is not the first time that a Supreme Court ruling has created concerns that courts might obstruct citizen suits by reading impossibly high standing requirements into federal environmental statutes. Fortunately, the worst predictions in the past have largely failed to materialize because judicial resistance to environmental standing in some cases has been tempered by judicial openness in others. This Comment provides an early analysis of the potential impact of the Summers decision on future environmental litigation. After laying out the basic factual background in Summers, it examines how this case fits into the Supreme Court’s recent standing jurisprudence since the 1980s, focusing specifically on the injury-in-fact requirement — one of the three prongs of the Court’s constitutional standing inquiry that was at issue in Summers. The Comment then discusses the standing criteria for procedural injury claims, as well as the related Article III limitations on Congress’s ability to confer standing in citizen suits. Finally, it considers the decision’s immediate and broader impact on both environmental protection and potential litigation strategies and suggests that Summers’s effect is likely to be more limited than it first appears.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".