There are three court cases that this writer finds the most important in regards to NEPA, these are: Cliff’s v. AEC, Sierra Club v. Morton, and Hanley v. Kleindienst. The first case analyzed, Cliff’s v. AEC, covers an agencies’ obligation to obey NEPA to the “fullest extent possible”. The second case Sierra Club v. Morton, covers “standing”. The third case, Hanley v. Kleindienst, covers defining the word “significance’’. All these cases cover impactful aspects of NEPA that need to be studied and scrutinized to ensure future cases are well prepared
A) Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy commission (AEC) 449 F. 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 942 ( 1972) .
This is perhaps NEPA’s most influential …show more content…
In a split opinion (four-three), ‘the supreme court evaluated ‘standing’, which is the right to obtain judicial review of a challenged action’ (Bass, et al). The Disney Company was attempting to develop and build a ski resort in the Mineral King Valley, within Sequoia National Forest. They obtained a 30 years lease from the US Forest Service (USFS). The State of California had also approved to build a 25 mile highway right through the middle of Sequoia National Park in order to make the ski resort accessible for up to 14,000 visitors daily. The Sierra Club opposed the construction, being the first time a third party attempted to object to a project not involving them directly on an environmental …show more content…
The Sierra Club maintained that many parts of the future development breached federal laws and regulations controlling the conservation of national parks. Sierra Club maintained that they had standing to take legal action due to they were a "membership corporation with a special interest in the conservation and the sound maintenance of the national parks.” The Trial Court found that Sierra Club had standing to sue, and that they had "raised questions concerning possible excess of statutory authority, sufficiently substantial, and serious enough to justify a preliminary injunction." Moreover, The Sierra Club maintained that they had standing to sue due to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §702), describes that, "A person suffering legal wrong because of agency actions, is entitled to judicial review”. However, the US Supreme Court found that Sierra Club had not undergone a 'legal wrong', and in its place, had a 'mere interest in the problem', and a mere interest, without relevance of how longstanding the interest and without relevance of how capable the organization is in examining the issue, is not enough by itself to justify the organization adversely affected. The Court proclaimed so as to have standing, The Sierra Club would have to show that its members used the National Forest, and that how those uses would be
A) Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy commission (AEC) 449 F. 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971) cert. denied, 404 U.S. 942 ( 1972) .
This is perhaps NEPA’s most influential …show more content…
In a split opinion (four-three), ‘the supreme court evaluated ‘standing’, which is the right to obtain judicial review of a challenged action’ (Bass, et al). The Disney Company was attempting to develop and build a ski resort in the Mineral King Valley, within Sequoia National Forest. They obtained a 30 years lease from the US Forest Service (USFS). The State of California had also approved to build a 25 mile highway right through the middle of Sequoia National Park in order to make the ski resort accessible for up to 14,000 visitors daily. The Sierra Club opposed the construction, being the first time a third party attempted to object to a project not involving them directly on an environmental …show more content…
The Sierra Club maintained that many parts of the future development breached federal laws and regulations controlling the conservation of national parks. Sierra Club maintained that they had standing to take legal action due to they were a "membership corporation with a special interest in the conservation and the sound maintenance of the national parks.” The Trial Court found that Sierra Club had standing to sue, and that they had "raised questions concerning possible excess of statutory authority, sufficiently substantial, and serious enough to justify a preliminary injunction." Moreover, The Sierra Club maintained that they had standing to sue due to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. §702), describes that, "A person suffering legal wrong because of agency actions, is entitled to judicial review”. However, the US Supreme Court found that Sierra Club had not undergone a 'legal wrong', and in its place, had a 'mere interest in the problem', and a mere interest, without relevance of how longstanding the interest and without relevance of how capable the organization is in examining the issue, is not enough by itself to justify the organization adversely affected. The Court proclaimed so as to have standing, The Sierra Club would have to show that its members used the National Forest, and that how those uses would be