Sierra Club v. Morton 405

SIERRA CLUB v. MORTON 405 U.S. 727 (1972), U.S. Supreme Court

Sierra Club, a membership corporation with "a special interest in the conservation and sound maintenance of the national parks, game refuges, and forests of the country," brought this suit, and an injunction to restrain federal officials from approving an extensive skiing development in the Mineral King Valley in the Sequoia National Forest. Mineral King Valley is an area of great natural beauty nestled in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Tulare County, California, adjacent to Sequoia National Park. It has been part of the Sequoia National Forest since 1926, and is designated as a national game refuge by special Act of Congress. It has remained a quasi-wilderness largely because of its relative inaccessibility.

The Forest Service published a prospectus in 1965, inviting bids from private developers for the construction and operation of a ski resort that would also serve as a summer recreation area. The proposal of Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc. was chosen from those of six bidders. The final Disney plan, approved by the Forest Service in January 1969, outlines a $35 million complex of motels, restaurants, swimming pools, parking lots, and other structures for 14,000 visitors daily. This complex is to be constructed on 80 acres of the valley floor. Other facilities, including ski lifts, ski trails, a cog-assisted railway, and utility installations, are to be constructed on the mountain slopes and in other parts of the valley under a revocable special-use permit. To provide access to the resort, the State of California proposed to construct a highway 20 miles in length. A section of this road would traverse Sequoia National Park, as would a proposed high-voltage power line needed to provide electricity for the resort.

The Sierra Club unsuccessfully sought a public hearing on the proposed development in 1965, and in subsequent correspondence with officials of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, they expressed the Club's objections to Disney's plan. The Club filed the present suit seeking a judgment that various aspects of the proposed development contravene federal laws and regulations governing the preservation of national parks, forests, and game refuges.

The issue, according to the Sierra Club was that the Morton (Disney) organization would change the uses to which the valley would be put and the attendant change in the aesthetics and ecology of the area. Sierra Club did not claim that the challenged development would affect the club or its members in their activities or that they used Mineral King, but maintained that the project would adversely change the area. Any allegations of individualized injury is superfluous, they alleged, on the theory that this was a "public" action involving questions as to the use of natural resources.

The Holding was that a person has standing to seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act only if he can show that he himself has suffered or will suffer injury, whether economic or otherwise. In this case, where petitioner asserted no individualized harm to itself or its members, it lacked standing to maintain the action. Sierra Club relies on 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which accords judicial review to a "person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or [who is] adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute."

On the theory that this was a "public" action involving questions as to the use of natural resources, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the club lacked standing, and had not shown irreparable injury. As the court noted, this theory reflects a misunderstanding of cases involving so-called "public actions" in the area of administrative law. A party seeking review must allege facts showing that he is himself adversely affected and there was "no allegation in the complaint that members of the Sierra Club would be affected by the actions of Morton other than the fact that the actions are personally displeasing or distasteful to them."