•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Note takes an in-depth look at standing and, specifically, the extent to which increased risk of exposure to toxins caused by a government agency’s regulations constitutes a judicially cognizable injury-in-fact. Despite over a century of case law on the topic, standing doctrine remains in flux and ill defined, largely due to the constantly changing ideological makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. The lower courts are divided on the question of whether increased risk of future harm constitutes an injury-in-fact. Using Baur v. Veneman as a case study, this Note argues for the expansion of the definition of injury-in-fact to include potential future injuries that result from a specific government policy.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS