## Facts

- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) authorized public hunting in certain units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
- The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and an individual member challenged these decisions under NEPA, the ESA, the Refuge Recreation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
- Plaintiffs alleged HSUS members used the refuges for recreational and aesthetic purposes, especially wildlife observation, and that hunting would diminish those interests.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring compliance with the cited statutes before opening refuges to hunting.

## Issues

1. Whether HSUS had associational standing to challenge FWS decisions permitting hunting on national wildlife refuges on behalf of its members.
2. Whether FWS complied with NEPA in authorizing hunting at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.

## Decision

- The court reversed the district court’s denial of associational standing and held HSUS could sue on behalf of its members.
- The court affirmed the judgment for the government on the NEPA claim involving Chincoteague, concluding FWS’s NEPA process was sufficient.
- The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining statutory challenges.

## Legal Principles

- An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when: (1) at least one member has Article III standing; (2) the interests asserted are germane to the organization’s purposes; and (3) neither the claim nor the requested relief requires individual member participation.
- Recreational and aesthetic injuries tied to diminished ability to observe and enjoy wildlife can constitute an Article III injury in fact.
- Causation and redressability are satisfied where the alleged injuries are fairly traceable to an agency decision and can be alleviated by setting aside or enjoining that decision.
- The germaneness requirement is a low threshold; a court should not construe an organization’s purpose so narrowly that related member interests are treated as irrelevant.
- NEPA is satisfied where the agency takes a “hard look” at environmental consequences and its decision-making record supports its conclusion that further documentation (such as an EIS) is unnecessary under the applicable standard of review.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held HSUS had associational standing to challenge refuge hunting authorizations because members alleged cognizable wildlife-observation injuries that were germane to HSUS’s purposes, but it upheld FWS’s NEPA compliance for the Chincoteague hunting authorization and remanded for litigation of the remaining claims.


Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1988)