John Paul Stevens

“ Because I am not persuaded that Congress intended the consultation requirement in § 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) , 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (a) (2) , to apply to activities in foreign countries, I concur in the judgment of reversal. I do not, however, agree with the Court's conclusion [p582] that respondents lack standing because the threatened injury to their interest in protecting the environment and studying endangered species is not "imminent." ”

“ The Court nevertheless concludes that respondents have not suffered "injury in fact," because they have not shown that the harm to the endangered species will produce "imminent" injury to them. See ante at 564. I disagree. An injury to an individual's interest in studying or enjoying a species and its natural habitat occurs when someone (whether it be the government or a private party) takes action that harms that species and habitat. ”

“ Finally, the general purpose of the ESA does not evince a congressional intent that the consultation requirement be applicable to federal agency actions abroad. The congressional findings explaining the need for the ESA emphasize that
various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence [p589] of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation, and that these species "are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people." ”