Litigation Procedure Standing. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked prudential standing because their interests were solely economic and were outside the zone of interests that NEPA was intended to protect. The court explained that NEPA is intended to protect only environmental interests. The injuries that the plaintiffs alleged, however, were purely economic: impacts on safety, commercial development, tax revenues, and jobs. In their initial complaint, the court held, the plaintiffs had “failed to allege any threatened harms to the physical environment.” The court also held that it would be futile to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include additional allegations of environmental harms, for three reasons. First, the plaintiffs were purporting to assert the injuries of third parties (for example, future employees and patrons of the shopping center), without having satisfied the criteria for standing to represent those parties. Second, certain alleged environmental injuries were speculative and contingent on remote possibilities. For example, alleged groundwater contamination would only occur if a stormwater basin would be inadequately designed. Finally, the court held that any additional alleged environmental harms were disingenuous because it was clear that the plaintiffs’ actual interests were economic. The alleged environmental harms were “only fortuitously aligned with” the plaintiffs’ stated economic interests, and so they were insufficient to place the plaintiffs within NEPA’s zone of interests.