The Maritime Administration, which is part of the US Department of Transportation, issued a license for a deepwater port. Three environmental groups filed a Petition for Review in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The groups asserted that granting the license conflicted with the Deepwater Port Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The 5th Circuit dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction because the groups had not established standing.

Courts’ Limited Jurisdiction
Article III of the US Constitution grants jurisdiction only when those requesting court action can satisfy the “case-or-controversy requirement.” The case-or-controversy requirement means that plaintiffs must demonstrate standing. Groups that seek standing must show at least one of their members would have standing as an individual.

Lack of Particularized Injury
In this case, the 5th Circuit said that to establish standing the groups needed to demonstrate “a concrete, particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged license.” However, the groups “identified no member who has made that showing— no one who fishes near the port, boats beside it, works around it, or otherwise uses Project-affected waters or nearby areas in a way the Project would impair. Their concern for the Gulf may be heartfelt. But concern, without injury, is not standing.”

In addition to not using the “Project-affected area,” the groups failed to identify any “Project-specific emission, operation, construction effect or other evidence” that will cause their anticipated harms. Allegations of “speculative, undifferentiated risk of future harm” and “generalized allegations of environmental injury” do not establish standing.

To see the opinion https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60282-CV0.pdf