support of the claimed restriction. Rather, Idrogo merely held that a particular plaintiff bearing no relation to the Apache warrior Gerónimo could not sue for the "return” of Geronimo’s remains because that plaintiff did not satisfy the constitutional in efit American Indians, but rather to strike a balance between the needs of scientists, educators, and historians on the one hand, and American Indians on the other. Plaintiffs’ claim that they are victims of a mistaken over-enforcement of § 3002(a) is within the provision's zone of interests. 15 . The Supreme Court has found Congress’s use of the present tense to be significant when interpreting Congress’s intentions. Gwaltney of Smithfield Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 59, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987) (<HOLDING>) (superceded in irrelevant part by statute).
holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that congresss use of the present tense in 33 usc  1365 meant that citizens could not maintain a suit for past violations of the clean water act holding that denial of permit under section 404 of the clean water act was a taking holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit