Sierra Club v. Morton

This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (October 2014)

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act . The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.

The case prompted a famous dissent by Justice William O. Douglas suggesting that in response to ecological concerns, environmental objects (such as a valley, an alpine meadow, a river, or a lake) should be granted legal personhood by the public.

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Opinion of the Court

• 3 Justice Douglas's dissent

• 4 Subsequent developments

• 5 See also

• 6 References

• 7 Further reading

• 8 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Club_v._Morton&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Mineral King is a seven mile by one mile subalpine glacial valley in Sequoia National Forest then abutting Sequoia National Park in Tulare County, California and only accessible by a dirt county road. In 1965 the United States Forest Service began circulating a prospectus calling for bids for recreational developments at Mineral King. In 1969 the Forest Service accepted a bid by The Walt Disney Company proposing a $35 million ski resort accommodating 1.7 million annual visitors and at any one time 20,000 skiers. By comparison, Disneyland had cost $17 million. The resort would require construction of a new twenty mile highway and 66,000 volt power line through Sequoia National Park, then a nine-story parking structure and a cog-assisted railroad to ultimately take visitors into the valley. Walt Disney began personally buying private property around Mineral King through Retlaw Enterprises and, after contributing heavily in the California gubernatorial election, 1966 , received a personal promise from Ronald Reagan that the state would fund the highway.

Skeptical economists doubted the project would yield a positive net present value. Disney's master plan attracted national media attention from Harper's Magazine

as well as consistent, critical coverage by The New York Times .

Michael McCloskey had just ousted David Brower as executive director of the Sierra Club and, emboldened by the Second Circuit's decision in _Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission _, he sought a more direct, and litigious, approach to environmentalism by setting up the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, later renamed Earthjustice . The Sierra Club then sued the United States Secretary of the Interior in San Francisco federal court to block development of Disney's famous ski resort. Asserting itself as private attorney general , the Sierra Club argued that Disney's resort would cause "irreparable harm to the public interest ". The Sierra Club did not allege it suffered a unique, private injury from Disney's ski resort because it believed the court would then weigh the balance of hardships in Disney's favor. After two days of hearings, on July 23, 1969, District Judge William Thomas Sweigert issued a preliminary injunction blocking Disney's ski resort.

The Secretary appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . On September 16, 1970, Judge Ozell Miller Trask , joined by Judge John Kilkenny , vacated judgment and remanded , finding that the Club did not have standing to sue because it had made no allegation that it would be affected by Disney's ski resort. Discussing the merits, Judge Trask felt it was within the Secretary's discretion "to make available a vast area of incomparable beauty to more people rather than to have it remain inaccessible except to a rugged few." Judge Frederick George Hamley concurred, noting that although he thought the Sierra Club had standing to sue, he agreed on the merits that Judge Sweigert's injunction had been an abuse of discretion.

The Sierra Club's petition for certiorari was granted and the case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1971, with U.S. Solicitor General Erwin Griswold personally appearing. Tulare County filed amici briefs in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court supporting the Secretary. Lewis F. Powell, Jr. and Associate Attorney General William Rehnquist , who both joined the Court on January 7, 1972, did not participate in the case.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Club_v._Morton&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

On April 19, 1972, the Supreme Court affirmed 4–3. Writing for the Court, Justice Potter Stewart , joined by Justices Byron White , Thurgood Marshall , and Chief Justice Warren E. Burger , agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the Sierra Club had not alleged any legal interest in the case. Because the Constitution's Case or Controversy Clause prohibits advisory opinions , the Court reasons that the legal wrongs protected by the Administrative Procedure Act must at minimum meet the prevailing constitutional requirements of standing. The Sierra Club's legal interes

…