Posted by Tim Dowling
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler argues that the Supreme Court erred in Mass. v. EPA when it concluded that Massachusetts and the other Petitioners had standing. In particular, he finds fault with the court's analysis of "injury in fact," stating that the asserted injuries were not adequately particularized and concrete because they were generalized and widely shared, and that the alleged injuries were not sufficiently imminent.
In the comments section to his post (here and here), I take issue with his reading of the applicable law, the factual record, and the court's ruling in Mass. v. EPA, emphasizing that under prior standing cases, one doesn't lose standing simply because one's injury is widely shared, and that the Petitioners alleged actual, ongoing injuries (ongoing erosion of coast land, increased smog, actual loss of glaciers, etc).