IS SCALIAN STANDING THE LATEST SIGHTING OF THE LOCHNER-ESS MONSTER?: USING GLOBAL WARMING TO EXPLORE THE MYTH OF THE CORPORATE PERSON

摘要

Global climate change challenges classic economic assumptions that accompany most environmental cases. No longer can we assume that resources are unlimited and that economic growth will improve the quality of life for most people. The risks posed by climate change threaten basic human needs such as water, food, health, and a place to live. On the other hand, for corporations, the regulation of greenhouse gases poses the threat of reduced profits. This risk motivates corporations to avoid regulation regardless of the risks to humanity. These divergent interests are one reason that corporations should not be considered individuals in the standing analysis. This Comment challenges the legal assumption that a corporation is analogous to an individual in the standing analysis. The second part breaks down three assumptions in Justice Scalia 's approach to standing and discusses why environmental injuries rarely fit this paradigm. The third part argues that a corporation is not analogous to an individual by focusing on the difference in interests and the difference in political power between corporations and humans in the context of global warming. The fourth part reviews the legal consequences of assuming that a corporation is an individual in the standing analysis. Finally, the fifth part returns to the Lochner era, a time when the Court used a constitutional principle to protect economic interests (the right to contract) over human interests (healthy work environments) and suggests that by failing to distinguish between human individuals and corporate individuals, standing has turned constitutional protection into a myth.