Sierra Club V Morton (1972)
Introduction
Sierra Club v Morton is a case in the United States which was ruled by the American Supreme Court in the year 1972. Sierra Club did not support the construction of recreational ski centre at the Mineral King Valley. The case primarily revolves around environmental laws that act as the backbone of the court proceedings. Environmental issues in this context take the view that the general public should highly regard ecological elements. This research will deeply analyze the case with a clear discussion of the issues, reasons for the case, and the court ruling.
Discussion of the over-arching issue
The main issue of this case that touched on many American citizens is the environmental issue and environmental laws. The contemporary doctrines of environmental standings hinder environment complainants from presenting cases in courts. The system tends to allow people who would spoil the environment to continue with their activities with impunity. With the increasing climate changes and environmental catastrophes, these doctrines will have a significant impact. There have been a lot of attempts to liberalize the environmental tenets in the field of law, and the Sierra Club v Morton case was one of them (Stem 64).
The main reason for the court case was the struggle to fight for the protection of the environment with the Sierra Club going to court to prevent the destruction of the Sequoia National Forest in California. One judge from the case, Judge William Douglas was convinced with the initial complaint by the Club. His passionate dissent in the case made the basis in environmental legal battles, whose effects still build environmental advocacy and focuses on the different ways of viewing nature. Douglas pushed for a government rule allowing litigation. Douglas expressed his standings on the greatest party that was at risk in this case; the environment, and stated how it was essential to preserve it before it gets extinct.
Mineral King Valley was the environmental feature at high risk of destruction with the construction of the ski resort. Sierra Club then felt that this action would cause dire harm to the general public. The American environmental law involves legal standards aiming at protecting human health and improvement of the natural environment of the country. The country’s environmental laws have undergone amendments while more of them have also been formulated. Federal agencies such as the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior and the US Army Corps of Engineers help in the interpretation and enforcement of these laws.
Some of the significant environmental legislations include the Clean Air Act, which regulates the quality of air and deals with air pollution from stationary sources. The Clean Water Act which has regulations on discharges that goes into the USA waters and the water surface quality. Endangered Species Act involves protecting and saving the endangered and threatened species together with their natural homes. An act that regulates on the production, importation, use and disposal of chemical and substances components is the Toxic Substances Control Act. Superfund Act focuses on cleaning up hazardous substances sites together with accidents, spillages, and different emergency releases of these substances into the environment. The National Environmental Policy Act ensures federal agencies perform thorough research on the effects various projects are going to have on the environment before authorization processes (Ahmed & Mustofa 12).
How the case arose
Mineral King Valley is a seven by one-mile glacial valley in Sequoia National Forest. The only access to the valley was a dirty county road. In the year 1965, there were suggestions in the country for the development of more recreational centres at this valley. The United States Forest Service got lots of bids for this project, and it finally settled on a request by the Walt Disney Company to construct a recreational centre worth 35 million dollars with the capacity of hosting 1.7 million tourists every year and 20,000 visitors at any particular time. For the company to create this resort, there was also a need for constructing a twenty miles highway and a power line that had to go through the Sequoia National Park. There was a need to bring up a parking structure together with a railway to assist in the transportation of tourists to the valley.
Walt Disney bought the property around the valley using Retlaw Enterprises. Walt Disney then got a promise from Ronald Reagan for the financing of the highway after the company invested more in the California gubernatorial election in 1966. Many people had a view that the resort had no positive net present value and also social benefits to the society compared to the costs. During this period, David Brower was removed as the chief director in the organization who was known for setting direct strategies for environmentalism with coming up with the Sierra Club Legal Defence Fund. Sierra Club then resorted to suing the Interior Secretary of America in San Francisco court to prevent the project by Walt Disney Company.
Sierra Club then brought the argument that the resort would bring damages to the interests of the public. For the court to not compare the hardships and rule in favour of Walt Disney, Sierra Club did not bring the fact that it will suffer a unique private injury caused by the resort. Judge William Thomas issued a preliminary injunction after two days of hearings, which prevented the construction of the resort. The Club was then found to have no mandate to sue due to lack of allegations of how it would get impacted by the resort in 1970. Different judges gave their opinions on the case, with Judge Trek feeling it was within the Secretary’s discretion to avail the resort to many people rather than leaving the valley inaccessible but only for a few people. Judge Frederick, on the other hand, felt like blocking the construction of the resort was a misuse of discretion. The Sierra Club’s petition was then accepted, and it got a listening on November 17 1971 at the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision and its rationale
The Supreme Court made a ruling that the Sierra Club had not alleged any legal interest in the case on April 19 1972. According to the controversial clause in the American constitution, which prohibits advisory opinions, the Supreme Court reasons had to be as per the constitutional requirements. The court felt that Sierra Club’s interests in the case were dependant on a “zone of interests” test announced by Justice Douglas in two cases with a ruling in 1970. It reasoned that increasing the injury categories varies from abandoning the requirement that the complainant could get hurt.
The plaintiff could not sue under the Administrative Procedure Act since it was not able to prove that any party got hurt or would suffer after the action of construction of the resort. Sierra Club had to show how they would suffer directly, something they did not do as per the APA. Even though road constructions and high voltage power station development would affect the natural beauty of the valley, it is considered a general interest, and it was not sufficient to determine the complainant got affected in the way standing tenets require.
The ruling by Judge Douglas stated that the principal tenet should let environmental organizations such as Sierra Club to sue on behalf of inanimate objects such as land. It is therefore crucial for such objects to be legally represented during cases, and people who feel like a particular activity will jeopardize the well-being of these objects act as the legitimate spokesmen. From this ruling, it is rational that the environment should also have its rights. Since the environment cannot come to represent itself in the court, it is vital for providing guidelines on how the views of environmental protection can be raised in courts through specific organizations.
Justice Harry, on the other hand, argued that in cases of new issues with potential and significant effects, for example, environmental issues, the courts should not be rigid on their legal requirements. Harry then came up with two solutions for the case. It was either Sierra Club’s request for preliminary injunction would be accepted with a time extension to change its complaint to be at per with the doctrine requirements, or the court to adjust the original standing doctrine to give room for this type of litigation. From this ruling, the understanding is that the argument brought up by Sierra Club was making sense but because it wasn’t as per the doctrine requirements it did not hold. It was, therefore, crucial for the plaintiff to either reorganize its argument to relate to the legal tenets for it to have more weight (Oyez).
A party needs to have enough stakes in a justifiable controversy to get a judicial solution to that matter. If the party does not depend on any statute in law, the court will ask whether they have an alleged personal interest in the results of the case to make the problem to be adjudicated dealt with in an adversary context and a way that can attain judicial resolution. However, in cases where the doctrine requirements stand, the question will be the determination of whether the statute authorizes review at the behest of the complainant.
Conclusion
The case between Sierra Club and Morton was structured based on environmental laws in the USA. Inanimate objects in the environment, such as land can’t head to the courts and represent itself because they do not have that capability. It is therefore crucial that different organizations such as the Sierra Club come out loud in struggles to fight for the land rights in whichever manner to protect the environment. More environment laws touching on different sectors of the environment have to be formulated to ensure the effective support of the environment. More organizations that fight for environmental preservation should also be formed in the society to assist in the campaign. Sierra Club did not allege that the resort was going to impact it negatively. Still, it means a lot for the organization to take into account that the development would affect the ecological factors in the region.
Works Cited
Ahmed, A., & MUSTOFA, J. (2016). Role of soft law in environmental protection: an overview. Global Journal of Politics and Law Research, 4(2), 1-18.
Sierra Club v. Morton. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-34
Stern, S. W. (2018). STANDING FOR EVERYONE. Fordham Environmental Law Review, 30(2), 21-103.