Dawn at Mineral King Valley by Daniel P. Selmi;

Author:Daniel P. Selmi; [Selmi, Daniel P.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: NAT000000 NATURE / General, NAT011000 NATURE / Environmental Conservation & Protection, LAW034000 LAW / Environmental, LAW060000 LAW / Legal History, LAW000000 LAW / General
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Published: 2022-07-07T00:00:00+00:00

Since the inception of the litigation, Lee Selna had firmly believed that requiring actual use of Mineral King to establish standing made no sense. He reiterated that viewpoint in the club’s brief replying to the government’s opposition. A litigant “need not, and therefore should not, resort to artifice by alleging injury to an inconsequential but unique material interest when injury to the litigant’s aesthetic, conservational or recreational interest is the real reason for the lawsuit.” While the Sierra Club had sponsored pack trips originating in Mineral King, that activity “is of such little importance to the Club that it would not incur all of the disadvantages of litigation in an attempt to protect it.”69 The adversity required of a party to establish standing did not arise here from an interference with pack trips, but from the club’s interest in Mineral King and Sequoia National Park which the Disney plan threatened.

Finally, the Sierra Club reply brief charged that, in suggesting that use of Mineral King might support standing, the government had an ulterior motive. The Sierra Club had won a preliminary injunction in the district court, and one legal consideration in the granting of such injunctions is the effect on the “public interest.” By championing “use” as the test for standing, Selna reasoned, the government sought to establish a decisive advantage in opposing claims for injunctions. Under its position, the government won either way—it was a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition. “[E]ither 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.” The Sierra Club’s lawyers “shaped their case to avoid this trap.”70

In the end, though, Selna seemed to hedge his bets just slightly. His brief told the court: “While not emphasized in the record, there is no dispute that the Club represents the interest of its members who actually physically use and enjoy Mineral King and Sequoia National Park in their present state.”71 An accompanying footnote added that this “use and enjoyment is graphically detailed” in a letter, included in the case record, in which Mike McCloskey had requested the Forest Service to hold a hearing on the proposal to develop Mineral King.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.