Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. City of Dripping Springs; Todd Purcell, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Dripping Springs; and Mak Foster Ranch, L.P.

Summary

This dissenting opinion argues that en banc reconsideration was warranted because the panel’s decision allegedly conflicted with Texas precedent concerning associational standing to assert members’ environmental, recreational, and scientific interests. Justice Patterson contends that standing does not require a member to possess an affected vested property interest and would have granted Save Our Springs Alliance’s motion for en banc reconsideration.

Holdings

1. The dissent would grant Save Our Springs Alliance's motion for en banc reconsideration because the panel's decision conflicted with the court's jurisprudence concerning associational standing and environmental injury.
2. The dissent would reject a categorical requirement that an association show that one of its members has an affected property interest; recreational, aesthetic, scientific, or environmental injury may constitute injury in fact when sufficiently concrete and particularized.

Questions Presented

1. Whether en banc reconsideration was warranted because the panel's standing rule conflicted with the court's prior decisions.
2. Whether an association seeking to assert its members' environmental, recreational, or scientific injury must show that a member has a vested or other property interest affected by the challenged governmental action.

Disposition

other