Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 17 of 67 PageID 4439
predictable ways.”); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 169 (1997) (defendants’ actions need not be “the very last step in the chain of causation”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 242–44; NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 396–98 (5th Cir. 2015). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants and redressable by a favorable decision.
- 4. Plaintiffs are within the “Zone of Interests”
Plaintiffs are also within the zone of interests of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) and the Comstock Act. Plaintiffs suing under the APA must assert an interest that is “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute that they say was violated.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 162 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal marks omitted). The zone-of-interests test “is not meant to be especially demanding” and is applied “in keeping with Congress’s evident intent when enacting the APA to make agency action presumptively reviewable.” Id. (internal marks omitted). The zone-of-interests test “looks to the law’s substantive provisions to determine what interests (and hence which plaintiffs) are protected.” Simmons v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 972 F.3d 664, 669 (5th Cir. 2020). “That interest, at times, may reflect aesthetic, conservational, and recreational as well as economic values.” Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 154 (1970).
A federal court’s obligation to hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction is “virtually unflagging.” Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 126 (internal marks omitted). And “the trend is toward enlargement of the class of people who may protest administrative action.” Camp, 397 U.S. at 154. No “explicit statutory provision” is necessary to confer standing. Id. at 155. “The test forecloses suit only when a plaintiff’s interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.” Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 162 (internal marks omitted). In other words, “[t]here is
17
