A recent decision by a federal district judge may signal the revival of the standing question in environmental actions, a defense which had been assumed moribund for the past few years. Judge Aubrey Robinson of the District Court for the District of Columbia, in Animal Welfare Institute v. Richardson,¹ declared that environmental and humane groups lack standing to challenge a National Marine Fisheries Service permit issued pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)² which allows the Fouke Company to import 13,000 Cape fur seal skins taken in the Republic of South Africa. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin issuance of the permit on the ground that it would allow importation of the skins of seals taken in violation of the MMPA. The district court found that plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficient injury-in-fact to maintain the suit, and both denied injunctive relief and dismissed the action.

Because the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to hear an expedited appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction,³ the importation and sale of the sealskins are likely to occur before the case can be heard on the regular appeal docket. If the D.C. Circuit does not dismiss the appeal as moot, plaintiffs thus will gain, at most, a hollow legal victory even if they succeed in reversing the district court's ruling. The decision bodes ill for the MMPA, and may, if applied uncritically in conjunction with several recent Supreme Court decisions on standing, chill the prospects of maintaining environmental suits in federal court.