Priscilla Summers et al. v. Earth Island Institute et al.
The Court rejected the environmental groups' argument that they still had standing to challenge the Forest Service's exemption process generally, after their dispute over salvage timber sales on 238 acres was settled.· AI-written
555 U.S. 488 · No. 07-463 · 2008 term · Roberts Court
Decided Mar 3, 2009 · argued Oct 8, 2008
Judicial power · Standing to sue: live dispute
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Priscilla Summers et al. won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and overturned or set aside the rest.
Priscilla Summers et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case decided 5–4 in which several environmental organizations, including Earth Island Institute, brought suit against the United States Forest Service (USFS) to enjoin the federal agency from implementing rules that would allow the salvage sale of timber from 238 acres of fire-damaged federally owned land without conducting the notice, comment, and appeal process of the Forest Service Decision-making and Appeals Reform Act.
While the environmental organizations were litigating the injunction in the lower courts, the parties reached a settlement regarding the 238 acres in question and the district court accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs, however, maintained that they still had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption process generally because the process was statistically certain to implicate their rights in the future. The Court decided that this argument failed because voluntarily settling the portion of their lawsuit relevant to Burnt Ridge caused respondents and their members to be no longer under threat of injury from the project. The Court decided against the plaintiffs by holding that the "deprivation of a procedural right without some concrete interest that is affected by the deprivation... is insufficient to create Article III standing."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2008 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Priscilla Summers et al.United States Forest Service
- Respondent
- Earth Island Institute et al.Environmental organization
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level); Interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 3, 2009DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Priscilla Summers et al. won.
- Oct 8, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: live dispute, newest first.
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski141 S. Ct. 792Mar 8, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 792Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,572 U.S. 118Mar 25, 2014 · 572 U.S. 118Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Texas v. United States et al.523 U.S. 296Mar 31, 1998 · 523 U.S. 296Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Louise Renne, San Francisco City Attorney, et al. v. Bob Geary, et al.501 U.S. 312Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 312Judicial power6–36–3 band
- ASARCO Inc. et al. v. Kadish et al.490 U.S. 605May 30, 1989 · 490 U.S. 605Judicial power6–27–2 band
- United States Parole Commission et al. v. Geraghty445 U.S. 388Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 388Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank of Jackson, Mississippi v. Roper et al.445 U.S. 326Mar 19, 1980 · 445 U.S. 326Judicial power7–27–2 band
- Golden, Acting District Attorney of Kings County v. Zwickler394 U.S. 103Mar 3, 1969 · 394 U.S. 103Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.