In the case of Steel Company, aka Chicago Steel and Pickling Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury to bring suit under federal environmental laws, even if those laws provide for citizen suits. The court held that "psychological" injuries were not sufficient to establish standing in this context. In this case, Citizens for a Better Environment had sued Chicago Steel and Pickling Co., alleging it had violated reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). However, by the time they filed their lawsuit, Chicago Steel was already in compliance with EPCRA's regulations; thus no ongoing violation existed at filing time which could cause direct harm or imminent threat thereof to plaintiffs' members - hence no 'standing'. This decision emphasized that courts cannot rule on legal questions unless there is an actual controversy between parties involving concrete facts.

In the dissenting opinion for Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case due to lack of standing was incorrect. He contended that because Congress had explicitly granted citizens' groups like CBE (Citizens for a Better Environment) the right to sue under certain environmental laws, it should be assumed they have legal standing in such cases. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "injury in fact," arguing that past infractions can indeed constitute an ongoing injury if their effects are still being felt or if there is no guarantee against future violations. In his view, this would make CBE eligible for relief even though Chicago Steel and Pickling Company had already corrected its violation by the time suit was filed.