Case Citator › Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Questioned by some courtsin review
910 of 915 flagged citations read · 99.5%
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
504 U.S. 555
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
910 of 915
Citing cases (total)
24,765
Treatment dates
2020
Questioned by some courts · in review
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is still in review. Of 915 flagged citations, 910 have been read.
More on how this was screened

The texts of five citing opinions could not be retrieved, so they remain unread. One confirmed treatment is listed below.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

24,765 later cases cite Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife; 915 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; the progress bar above tracks how many have been read so far. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Questioned

  • The Sixth Circuit questioned whether Lujan’s pleading presumption still governs standing motions after Twombly and Iqbal, leaving that issue unresolved.

    Shelby Advocates for Valid Elections v. Hargett · Sixth Circuit · filed

    True, standing- related cases before Twombly and Iqbal “presum[ed] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); see Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957)). But Twombly and Iqbal replaced Conley’s permissive pleading standard, calling into question the use of the Conley rule in the Rule 12(b)(1) context.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace