For recent Supreme Court analysis of constitutional standing, see the following cases.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The Court held that parties did not have standing to challenge a regulation interpreting the ESA without an actual or imminent injury. The Court denied standing on a number of proposed theories including an ecosystem nexus, animal nexus, vocational nexus, and that the ESA allows all persons to sue.
 

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). The Court held that a party challenging a federal agency's restrictions imposed to protect endangered species did have standing under the zone-of-interests test even though the plaintiffs sought to prevent application of environmental restrictions rather than to implement such restrictions.
 

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (1998). The Court determined that a party did not have standing to sue under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act because no relief sought was likely to remedy the alleged injury as the relief would not reimburse the organization for losses or eliminate effects of late reporting. The Court declined to reach the merits noting that "federal courts ought to be certain of their jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a case."
 
 

University of Mississippi