National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge agency determination where plaintiff faced “the same statutory and regulatory alternatives” as before the determination
• noting that the injurious action must be one “that would otherwise confer Article III standing” if challenged directly (quoting United Transp. Union v. ICC, 891 F.2d 908, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1989))
• arguing that Nucor cannot claim that it is -injured by damage that Big River Steel’s emissions will’' cause' to its property because the “emissions from Nucor’s own mills exceed the permitted emissions from Big River”
• spending must be for “operational costs beyond those normally expended to carry out its advocacy mission”
• mentioning “testifying before the United States Senate” and “submitting comments to the EPA” as being insufficient
• rejecting theory of standing based on only the “possibility of [harmful] regulation” by federal agency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).