1. Article III Standing

Environmental justice activist organizations, acting as the Plaintiffs and purporting to have suffered harm as the result of private actions by private landowners, lack standing to sue governmental entities that merely issue approvals for land use but do not perform the allegedly harmful acts. Article III establishes the bar for a plaintiff to have standing to access a court to proceed against a defendant. This Court announced the three elements of standing, the second of which requires "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be 'fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.'" Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). St. James Parish, the Petitioner, issues approvals to third-party landowner applicants for various uses, including industrial development, but ultimately does not control what actions the applicants take on their land. The question presented is:

Can a governmental entity "significantly contribute" to a plaintiff's alleged harms in a manner sufficient to support Article III standing when the governmental entity merely issues non-coercive land use decisions allowing independent actions by third parties not before the court to take the actions that lead to and cause the plaintiffs' alleged harms?

2. Statute of Limitations

The Plaintiffs' private cause of action alleges that St. James Parish, the Petitioner, engaged in a "longstanding pattern and practice of racially discriminatory land use decisions." See Pet. App. 240a: Inclusive Louisiana, et al v. St. James Parish, 134 F.4th 297, 305 (5th Cir. 2025). The Plaintiffs judicially admit that, no later than 2014, they had actual knowledge of this alleged pattern and practice and that even recent events are merely "further evidence of the continuing racially discriminatory land use patterns and practices that already existed in St. James Parish." Pet. App. 99a: District Court Doc. 29, ¶291. At that point in time, they had the "right to apply to the court for relief" as to that pattern and practice and their claims accrued. Here, the Fifth Circuit failed to find that the limitations period accrued and began to run at the time the Plaintiffs admitted they became aware of the alleged pattern and practice. With regard to environmental justice claims and litigation, these types of "pattern or practice" allegations are utilized to evade the accrual of private causes of action and permit their filing long after the claims have become untimely. The question presented is:

Whether a plaintiff's alleged "longstanding pattern and practice of discrimination" claims accrue and begin the running of the statute of limitations at the moment the plaintiff admits it had knowledge of that pattern and practice?

Can a governmental entity 'significantly contribute' to a plaintiff's alleged harms in a manner sufficient to support Article III standing when the governmental entity merely issues non-coercive land use decisions allowing independent actions by third parties not before the court to take the actions that lead to and cause the plaintiffs' alleged harms?