Editors' Summary: NWF v. Lujan, the Supreme Court's landmark decision that amplifies the injury-in-fact standing requirement and the ripeness test determination of whether an agency action is final, reveals more than when an environmental group can go to court. Justice Scalia's opinion indicates a paradigm shift in the view of the proper role of the judiciary from that of securing public law principles to that of prescribing private law constructs derived from Marbury v. Madison. NWF v. Lujan posits whether the doctrines of standing and ripeness should be used to limit the countermajoritarian judicial branch to protecting the minority from the majority or whether a legitimate function of the courts is to inculcate into the executive branch the social principles enunciated by the legislature. The author examines the doctrine of standing, Justice Scalia's opinion and its implications for environmental law, and what practitioners can do to ensure that their cases are not dismissed on standing or ripeness grounds.