Question

A town in Alaska is suing the federal government claiming violations of their due process and equal protection rights because the population of fish in the bay on which the town sits has declined significantly over the past 20 years due to rising ocean water temperatures. The town claims that the government's failure to properly combat carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution has significantly contributed climate change, one result of which is rising ocean temperatures. In its motion to dismiss the town's lawsuit for lack of standing, the government argues that the rising ocean temperatures are irreversible and cannot be addressed by future changes in carbon dioxide emission regulations. Which of the "irreducible constitutional minimum" requirements of Article III standing is the government claiming the plaintiffs have not met?

a. They suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.

b. They filed their suit within the time limit imposed by the statute of limitations.

c. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.

d. The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.

Answer 1

a. They suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent

It states in this context that the injury is an invasion of the legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent. The injury in this case is not a specific issue instead it is a general and irreversible issue that is predominant throughout.