Shrimpers and Fishermen v. TX Cmsn on Env Q, 968 F.3d 419

TCEQ granted air permits to Rio Grande LNG; petitioners (two membership organizations) sought either a contested‑case hearing before SOAH or denial of the permits and were denied.
Petitioners filed a state suit in Travis County and, while it was pending, filed a petition for direct review in the Fifth Circuit asking for vacatur and either a contested‑case hearing or permit denial.
Texas law allows TCEQ discretion to hold contested‑case hearings only for an “affected person”; SB 709 added provisions narrowing group standing and directing TCEQ rulemaking on factors.
Petitioners offered members who live/work within roughly an 11–18 mile radius and alleged increased health risks and ozone levels near NAAQS as the injury basis.
The Fifth Circuit required petitioners to show Article III standing with evidentiary support (standing burden like summary judgment in direct appellate review).
The court dismissed for lack of Article III standing because petitioners relied on generalized/increased‑risk allegations without concrete evidence of an actual or imminent injury; it declined to address the merits or source of any cause of action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing to challenge TCEQ permit grant	Members living/working within ~14 miles will face increased health risks from emissions and ozone near NAAQS	Alleged harms are generalized, speculative, and unsupported by record evidence	No standing — injuries too generalized/speculative; petitioners failed to produce concrete evidence of actual or imminent harm
Standing to enforce procedural right (denial of contested‑case hearing)	Denial of contested‑case hearing is a procedural injury sufficient for review	Procedural claim cannot stand without a concrete interest underlying it	No procedural standing — petitioners lacked a concrete interest that the procedure protects
Source/jurisdiction for federal review (APA or Natural Gas Act)	Petitioners suggested APA or 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) (Natural Gas Act) provide review/jurisdiction	Defendants and concurrence: APA does not reach state agency TCEQ; § 717r(d)(1) grants jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action	Court did not decide the cause‑of‑action question because it dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction; concurring opinion flagged serious statutory and constitutional questions about federal jurisdiction over state‑law claims

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (standing is jurisdictional; must be resolved first)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing elements)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury must be concrete and particularized)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (imminence and substantial‑risk standards)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (procedural‑rights standing requires underlying concrete interest)
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (when state‑law claims present a federal issue for jurisdictional purposes)
American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (action arises under law that creates the cause of action)
Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (narrow category when state‑law claims can present federal‑question jurisdiction)