Source: http://www.hanrei-usa.net/hanreiUserPrecedentSearch.do?action=compare&precedentId=3
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:03:55+00:00

Document:
Its relative inaccessibility and lack of development have limited the number of visitors each year, and at the same time have preserved the valley's quality as a quasi-wilderness area largely uncluttered by the products of civilization.
The proposal of Walt Disney Enterprises, Inc., was chosen from those of six bidders, and Disney received a three-year permit to conduct surveys and explorations in the valley in connection with its preparation of a complete master plan for the resort.
Both the highway and the power line require the approval of the Department of the Interior, which is entrusted with the preservation and maintenance of the national parks.
The petitioner Sierra Club sued as a membership corporation with "a special interest in the conservation and sound maintenance of the national parks, game refuges, and forests of the country," and invoked the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
The respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 433 F.2d 24. 被控訴人は上告し、第9巡回区控訴裁判所は原判決を破棄した。433F.2d24.
The Sierra Club filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 401 U.S. 907, to review the questions of federal law presented.
Where the party does not rely on any specific statute authorizing invocation of the judicial process, the question of standing depends upon whether the party has alleged such a "personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, as to ensure that "the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101. 当事者が特定の制定法に基づいて司法手続きを請求できない場合、当事者適格が認められるかどうかの問題は、「争いの成り行きにおける人的関与」について、Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204,「裁かれるべき論争が当事者の主張のなかで不利益なものとして述べられ、かつ、過去の判例から見るに同論争が司法解決できるものであると保証されるような人的関与であることを、当事者が申し立てたか否かにかかっている。 Flast v.Cohen,392 U.S. 83, 101.
That question is presented in this case.
It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.
This theory reflects a misunderstanding of our cases involving so-called "public actions" in the area of administrative law.
It is within the power of Congress to confer such standing to prosecute an appeal."
It is in a similar sense that we have used the phrase "private attorney general" to describe the function performed by persons upon whom Congress has conferred the right to seek judicial review of agency action. See Data Processing, supra, at 154.
But broadening the categories of injury that may be alleged in support of standing is a different matter from abandoning the requirement that the party seeking review must have himself suffered an injury.
And if any group with a bona fide "special interest" could initiate such litigation, it is difficult to perceive why any individual citizen with the same bona fide special interest would not also be entitled to do so.
The principle that the Sierra Club would have us establish in this case would do just that.
1. Act of July 3, 1926, 44 Stat. 821, 16 U.S.C. § 688.
Finally, the complaint asserte that 16 U.S.C. § 45 (c) requires specific congressional authorization of a permit for construction of a power transmission line within the limits of a national park.
III federal courts to render advisory opinions, Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, or to entertain "friendly" suits, United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, or to resolve "political questions," Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, because suits of this character are inconsistent with the judicial function under Art. III.
The Non-Hohfeldian or Ideological Plaintiff, 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1033 (1968).
See also Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 137-139.
5. In deciding this case we do not reach any questions concerning the meaning of the "zone of interests" test or its possible application to the facts here presented.
6. See, e.g., Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1, 7; Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 357 U.S. 77, 83; FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477.
The complaint in that case alleged that the organizational plaintiff represented members who were "residents of Memphis, Tennessee who use Overton Park as a park land and recreation area and who have been active since 1964 in efforts to preserve and protect Overton Park as a park land and recreation area."
Its interests would be vitally affected by the acts hereinafter described and would be aggrieved by those acts of the defendants as hereinafter more fully appears."
See n. 15, infra. Our decision does not, of course, bar the Sierra Club from seeking in the District Court to amend its complaint by a motion under Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"We hold, therefore, that the public interest in environmental resources -- an interest created by statutes affecting the issuance of this permit -- is a legally protected interest affording these plaintiffs, as responsible representatives of the public, standing to obtain judicial review of agency action alleged to be in contravention of that public interest."
10. The statute involved § 402(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, 1093.
11. This much is clear from the Scripps-Howard Court's citation of FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, in which the basis for standing was the competitive injury that the appellee would have suffered by the licensing of another radio station in its listening area.
12. The distinction between standing to initiate a review proceeding, and standing to assert the rights of the public or of third persons once the proceeding is properly initiated, is discussed in 3 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 22.05-22.07 (1958).
13. See, e.g., Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 428 F.2d 1093, 1097 (interest in health affected by decision of Secretary of Agriculture refusing to suspend registration of certain pesticides containing DDT); Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994, 1005 (interest of television viewers in the programming of a local station licensed by the FCC); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conf. v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608, 615-616 (interests in aesthetics, recreation, and orderly community planning affected by FPC licensing of a hydroelectric project); Reade v. Ewing, 205 F.2d 630, 631-632 (interest of consumers of oleomargarine in fair labeling of product regulated by Federal Security Administration); Crowther v. Seaborg, 312 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (interest in health and safety of persons residing near the site of a proposed atomic blast).
"In order to ensure that the Federal Power Commission will adequately protect the public interest in the aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects of power development, those who by their activities and conduct have exhibited a special interest in such areas, must be held to be included in the class of 'aggrieved' parties under § 313 (b) [of the Federal Power Act]."
In most, if not all of these cases, at least one party to the proceeding did assert an individualized injury either to himself or, in the case of an organization, to its members.
"The Government seeks to create a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation in which either the courthouse door is barred for lack of assertion of a private, unique injury or a preliminary injunction is denied on the ground that the litigant has advanced private injury which does not warrant an injunction adverse to a competing public interest. Counsel have shaped their case to avoid this trap."
See n. 12 and accompanying text, supra.
Less familiar, however, is de Tocqueville's further observation that judicial review is effective largely because it is not available simply at the behest of a partisan faction, but is exercised only to remedy a particular, concrete injury.
The errors of the legislator are exposed only to meet a real want; and it is always a positive and appreciable fact that must serve as the basis for a prosecution." Id., at 102.
This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.
Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.
The District Court held that this uncontested allegation made the Sierra Club "sufficiently aggrieved" to have "standing" to sue on behalf of Mineral King.
Those who have that intimate relation with the inanimate object about to be injured, polluted, or otherwise despoiled are its legitimate spokesmen.
See 36 Fed. Reg. 7724.
It satisfies the public clamor for supervision of the railroads, at the same time that supervision is almost entirely nominal. Moreover, the older the Commission gets to be, the more likely it is to take a business and railroad view of things." M. Josephson, The Politicos 526 (1938).
その委員会は鉄道管理のために民衆の訴えを鎮め、同時に管理はほとんど名目上にすぎなかった。 さらに、委員会が古くなればそれだけ、ビジネスや鉄道という観点を強めるだろう。」M. Josephson, The Politicos 526 (1938).
But see Jaffe, The Federal Regulatory Agencies In a Perspective: Administrative Limitation In A Political Setting, 11 Bos. C.I. & C. Rev. 565 (1970) (labels "industry-mindedness" as "devil" theory).
The sole question is, who has standing to be heard?
But those people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders will be able to speak for the entire ecological community.
Ecology reflects the land ethic; and Aldo Leopold wrote in A Sand County Almanac 204 (1949), "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively, the land."
"As far as I know, no case has yet been decided which holds that a plaintiff which merely asserts that, to quote from the complaint here, its interest would be widely affected, and that 'it would be aggrieved,' by the acts of the defendant, has standing to raise legal questions in court.
"But why not? Do not the courts exist to decide legal questions? でもなぜでしょうか? 裁判所は法的問題を解決するために存在するはずではありませんか?
And are they not the most impartial and learned agencies we have in our governmental system? また、政治システムの中で最も公平かつ知見を有する機関ではないでしょうか?
Are there not many questions which must be decided by courts? 裁判所が解決すべき問題はたくさんあるのでは?
Why should not the courts decide any question which any citizen wants to raise? なぜ裁判所では、国民のみなさんが取り上げて欲しい問題を解決してくれないのでしょう?
As the tenor of my argument indicates, this raises, I think, a true question, perhaps a somewhat novel question, in the separation of powers. . . .
They are no less sworn than are the members of this Court to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
More important, it is not the system which was ordained and established in our Constitution, as it has been understood for nearly 200 years.
This has been the result of continuous whittling away of the numerous doctrines which have been established over the years, designed to minimize the number of governmental questions which it was the responsibility of the courts to consider.
I might also mention the explosive development of class actions which has thrown more and more issues into the courts. . . .
I do find myself more and more sure that it is not the kind of allocation of governmental power in our tripartite constitutional system that was contemplated by the Founders. . . .
Congress can stop this development any time it wants to."
Since the Court does not do so, however, I simply note agreement with my Brother BLACKMUN that the merits are substantial.
If this were an ordinary case, I would join the opinion and the Court's judgment and be quite content.
Must our law be so rigid and our procedural concepts so inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when the existing methods and the traditional concepts do not quite fit and do not prove to be entirely adequate for new issues?
And the irreparable harm will be largely inflicted in the earlier stages of construction and development.
They are crucial to the future of Mineral King.
These issues are not shallow or perfunctory.
Certainly, it should be no cause for alarm.
Who would have suspected 20 years ago that the concepts of standing enunciated in Data Processing and Barlow would be the measure for today? Date Processing社やBarlow社の件に見られる原告適格の扱い方が、今日のバロメーターになるなど、20年前誰が想像しえたであろうか?
As I read what he has written, he makes only one addition to the customary criteria (the existence of a genuine dispute; the assurance of adversariness; and a conviction that the party whose standing is challenged will adequately represent the interests he asserts), that is, that the litigant be one who speaks knowingly for the environmental values he asserts.
The State of California has proposed to build a new road from Hammond to Mineral King.
We are told that the State has agreed not to seek any further improvement in road access through the park.
Is this the way we perpetuate the wilderness and its beauty, solitude and quiet?
But that glow of anticipation will be short-lived at best. If he is a true lover of the wilderness -- as is likely, or he would not be near Mineral King in the first place -- it will not be long before he yearns for the good old days when masses of people -- that 14,000 influx per day -- and their thus far uncontrollable waste were unknown to Mineral King.
As the Court points out, ante, pp. 11-12, other federal tribunals have not felt themselves so confined.1 I would join those progressive holdings.
The issue of statutory standing aside, no doubt exists that "injury in fact" to "aesthetic" and "conservational" interests in here sufficiently threatened to satisfy the case or controversy clause. Data Processing Service v. Camp, supra, at 154.
She acquires a personality of her own." Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 438.
E.g., Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So. 846 (1927), discussed in Note, 12 Minn. L. Rev. 295 (1928), and in Note, 26 Mich. L. Rev. 545 (1928); see generally 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporation, §§ 50-53; P. Potter, Law of Corporation 27 (1881).
Today suits in the names of corporations are taken for granted.
See generally; Note, Mineral King Valley: Who Shall Watch the Watchman?, 25 Rutgers L. Rev. 103, 107 (1970); Thar's Gold in Those Hills, 206 The Nation 260 (1968). 参照— Note, Mineral King Valley: Who Shall Watch the Watchman?, (ミネラル・キング渓谷:だれが監視人を監視するか?注)25 Rutgers L. Rev. 103, 107 (1970); Thar's Gold in Those Hills(丘にある金), 206 The Nation 260 (1968).
For a general critique of mass recreation enclaves in national forests see Christian Science Monitor Nov. 22, 1965, at 5, col. 1. 国立森林公園における巨大なリクリエーション用地に対する一般的な批判としては、参照—Christian Science Monitor Nov. 22, 1965, at 5, col. 1.
M. Frome, The Forest Service 69 (1971).
Industry committees perform the dual function of stopping government from finding out about corporations while at the same time helping corporations get inside information about what government is doing.
" Metcalf, The Vested Oracles: How Industry Regulates Government, 3 The Washington Monthly 45 (1971). Metcalf, The Vested Oracles: How Industry Regulates Government既存の神託:どのように産業が政府を規制するか?」, 3 The Washington Monthly 45 (1971).
Hearings on S. 1737, S. 1964, and S. 2064 before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971).
Massel, The Regulatory Process, 26 Law and Contemporary Problems 181, 189 (1961); J. Landis, Report on Regulatory Agencies to the President-Elect 13, 69 (1960).
See Wagner, Resources Report/Lumbermen, conservationists head for new battle over government timber, 3 Nat. J. 657 (1971).
"Clearcutting," somewhat analogous to strip mining, is the indiscriminate and complete shaving from the earth of all trees -- regardless of size or age -- often across hundreds of contiguous acres.
Hearings on Management Practice on the Public Lands before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, pt. 1, at 7 (1971).
S. Doc. 91-115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1970). S. Doc. 91-115, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., 14 (1970).
See also Behan, Timber Mining: Accusation or Prospect? 77 American Forests 4 (1971) (additional comments of faculty participant); Reich, The Public and the Nation's Forests, 50 Cal. L. Rev. 381-400 (1962).
See also Public Land Law Review Comm'n, Report to the President and to the Congress 44 (1970); Chapman, Effects of Logging upon Fish Resources of the West Coast, 60 J. of For. 533 (1962).
Frome, The Environment and Timber Resources, What's Ahead for Our Public Lands? 24 (A. Pyles ed. 1970).
8. Permitting a court to appoint a representative of an inanimate object would not be significantly different from customary judicial appointments of guardians ad litem, executors, conservators, receivers, or counsel for indigents.
But only in this century did we unlock the secret of the penicillins, tetracyclines, and other antibiotics from the lowly molds, and thus fashion the most powerful and effective medicines ever discovered by man.
And what might we have learned from the European lion, the first species formally noted (in 80 A.D.) as extinct by the Romans?
"When a species is gone, it is gone forever. Nature's genetic chain, billions of years in the making, is broken for all time." 13 Conserv. 4 (Nov. 1971).
American cabinetmakers, when they want the last word in quality, use Spessart oak.
It required the modern microscope, and a century of research in soil science, to discover the existence of these 'small cogs and wheels' which determine harmony or disharmony between men and land in the Spessart."
When fishermen rise up united to save the pupfish they can save the world as well." Field & Stream, December 1971, p. 74.
Cape May County Chapter, Inc., Izaak Walton League v. Macchia, 329 F. Supp. 504, 510-514 (N.J. 1971).
ケープメイカウンティー・チャプター、イザーク・ウォルトン連盟 対 Macchia, 329 F. Supp. 504, 510-514(N.J. 1971).
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. HEW, 428 F.2d 1083, 1085 n. 2 (CADC 1970); Honchok v. Hardin, 326 F. Supp. 988, 991 (Md. 1971).
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Devotions XVII. だから誰のために鐘を鳴らすのかを決して知らせまい。それは汝の死を知らしめる。”献納 XVII.

References: § 701
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 688
 § 45
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 402
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 313
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.