From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sierra Club v. Morton
Sierra Club v. Morton
Sierra Club v. Morton permitted development would cause the Sierra Club suf-
ficient injury to give them standing to sue to block the
permit. The Supreme Court held that the Sierra Club, in
its corporate capacity, lacked standing, but that it may
sue on behalf of any of its members who had individual
standing because the government action affected their
aesthetic or recreational interests.
Although the Sierra Club lost the case, as a practical
Supreme Court of the United States
matter they won the war. All any environmental group
Argued November 17, 1971 needs to assert standing in a natural resource matter is to
Decided April 19, 1972 find among their membership a single person with a par-
Full case Sierra Club v. Rogers Clark Ballard Morton,
ticularized interest (e.g. one who hikes, hunts, fishes, or
name Secretary of the Interior, et al. camps in or near the affected area).
Holding
A person has standing to seek judicial review under the
Douglas’ dissent
Administrative Procedure Act only if he can show that he Sierra Club v. Morton is, perhaps, best known for the dis-
himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic senting opinion by William O. Douglas who asserted that
or otherwise. In this case, where petitioner asserted no natural resources ought to have standing to sue for their
individualized harm to itself or its members, it lacked
standing to maintain the action. own protection. An excerpt from his dissent:
“ The critical question of "standing" would be ”
Court membership
simplified and also put neatly in focus if we
Chief Justice
fashioned a federal rule that allowed environ-
Warren E. Burger mental issues to be litigated before federal
agencies or federal courts in the name of the
Associate Justices inanimate object about to be despoiled, de-
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan, Jr. faced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and
Potter Stewart · Byron White where injury is the subject of public outrage.
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Contemporary public concern for protecting
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · William Rehnquist
nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to
Case opinions the conferral of standing upon environmental
objects to sue for their own preservation. This
Majority Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Marshall suit would therefore be more properly labeled
Dissent Douglas as Mineral King v. Morton.
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in lit-
Dissent Brennan
igation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction
Dissent Blackmun found useful for maritime purposes. The cor-
poration sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law
Powell and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of
the case.
- is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes
ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a
Sierra Club v. Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a famous Unit-
Morton, "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory
ed States Supreme Court case on the issue of standing in processes, whether it represents proprietary,
environmental lawsuits. spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine
meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches,
Environmental standing ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air
The suit arose when the United States Forest Service per- that feels the destructive pressures of modern
mitted development of Mineral King near Sequoia Na- technology and modern life. The river, for ex-
tional Park. The key issue in the case was whether the ample, is the living symbol of all the life it sus-
1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sierra Club v. Morton
tains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water waters or areas may be treated differently.
ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all That is why these environmental issues should
other animals, including man, who are depen- be tendered by the inanimate object itself.
dent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its Then there will be assurances that all of the
sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks forms of life which it represents will stand be-
for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. fore the court - the pileated woodpecker as
Those people who have a meaningful relation well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as
to that body of water - whether it be a fisher- well as the trout in the streams. Those inartic-
man, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must ulate members of the ecological group cannot
be able to speak for the values which the river speak. But those people who have so frequent-
represents and which are threatened with de- ed the place as to know its values and wonders
struction..... will be able to speak for the entire ecological
The voice of the inanimate object, there- community.....
fore, should not be stilled. That does not mean That, as I see it, is the issue of "standing"
that the judiciary takes over the managerial in the present case and controversy.
functions from the federal agency. It merely
means that before these priceless bits of
Americana (such as a valley, an alpine mead-
ow, a river, or a lake) are forever lost or are so See also
transformed as to be reduced to the eventual • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume
rubble of our urban environment, the voice of 405
the existing beneficiaries of these environ-
mental wonders should be heard.
Perhaps they will not win. Perhaps the
Further reading
bulldozers of "progress" will plow under all • Schrepfer, Susan R. (1989). "Establishing
the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land. Administrative ‘Standing’: The Sierra Club and the
That is not the present question. The sole Forest Service, 1897-1956". The Pacific Historical
question is, who has standing to be heard? Review (The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 58, No. 1)
Those who hike the Appalachian Trail into 58 (1): 55–81. JSTOR 3641077.
Sunfish Pond, New Jersey, and camp or sleep
there, or run the Allagash in Maine, or climb
the Guadalupes in West Texas, or who canoe
External links
and portage the Quetico Superior in Minneso- • Works related to Sierra Club v. Morton at
ta, certainly should have standing to defend Wikisource
those natural wonders before courts or agen- • Text of Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) is
cies, though they live 3,000 miles away. Those available from: Justia · Findlaw
who merely are caught up in environmental
news or propaganda and flock to defend these
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sierra_Club_v._Morton&oldid=463237913"
Categories:
• Sierra Club
• United States Supreme Court cases
• United States environmental case law
• United States standing case law
• 1972 in United States case law
This page was last modified on 30 November 2011 at 05:16. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of
the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view
2