In Summers v. Earth Island Institute, where the decision of the Forest Service to sell burned timber on 238 acres without preparing an environmental impact statement or formal notice of the sale was challenged as a violation of the Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act, the Supreme Court held that since the:
A) Forest Service is exempt from most judicial review, the plaintiffs could only challenge the Forest Service's decisions in certain states
B) Forest Service is exempt from all judicial review, the plaintiffs could not challenge Forest Service's decisions in court
C) plaintiffs could demonstrate standing, they could challenge the Forest Service's actions in court
D) plaintiffs could only demonstrate standing, they could not challenge the Forest Service's actions in court
E) none of the other choices are correct

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Forest Service's actions because they could not demonstrate a concrete injury that would be directly addressed by winning the lawsuit. The options provided misrepresent the Court's reasoning regarding judicial review and standing.

In Summers V