English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Ms. Amy Skilbred made her living as a wildlife biologist. She regularly has traveled outside of the United States to study wildlife. She visited Sri Lanka specifically to observe and study various endangered species, such as the Asian elephant. Ms. Skilbred had a "fixed intention to return to" Sri Lanka for vocational purposes,' although the timing of her return depended, in part, on the cessation of the Sri Lankan Civil War.2 When it became clear that construction projects in Sri Lanka, funded, in part, by American agencies, threatened to destroy the habitat of the Asian elephant,' Defenders of Wildlife, an environmental group to which Ms. Skilbred belonged, brought suit. Defenders sought to preserve the species that Ms. Skilbred studied and planned to continue studying through an order requiring the Secretary of the Interior to restore an initial interpretation of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973' which had extended the geographic scope of the Act's protection of endangered species to actions taken by American agencies in foreign nations. Defenders alleged an injury to Ms. Skilbred in the form of a detriment to her studies and to the enjoyment that she derived from observing the Asian elephant.5

How Standing Has Fallen: The Need to Separate Constitutional and Prudential Concerns