THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSIERRA CLUB..................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
RODGERS C.B. MORTON, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND AS SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.....................RESPONDENTS
Civil Procedure: Whether a party is required to form special interest in the matter before
being granted standing.
Whether the litigant has to be an affected person.
The Sierra Club brought this action to stop a ski resort development and the construction of a
road through, the Sequoia National Park. The injury alleged by the Sierra Club was the change in
the use to which this area would be put. They sued as a “membership corporation” claiming they
had a special interest in the maintenance and conservation of the area. The Sierra Club claimed
that the development would destroy or otherwise affect the scenery, natural and historic objects
and wildlife in the park, and impair the enjoyment of the park for future generations.
HELD:
- The Sierra Club does not have legal standing to bring this action. The impact of the
proposed road will not fall indiscriminately upon every citizen, but will be felt directly
only by those who use the park and for whom the aesthetic and recreational values of the
area will be lessened by the proposed development. - The Sierra Club has failed to allege that it or its members would be affected in any of
their activities by this development. Nowhere in the pleadings or affidavits does the
Sierra Club claim that its members use the park for any purpose, much less that they
would be significantly affected by the development. - In the absence of allegations that the Sierra Club would be affected in any of its activities
by the proposed development, the Sierra Club’s alleged special interest in the
conservation of national game reserves and forests is insufficient for standing.
Petition dismissed