Question

Animal Rights Law and Politics: What might have allowed the Sierra Club to have standing in Sierra Club v. Morton?

Case: Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)

Answer 1

Standing for animals would alter a lot of suits to be brought
Because they are doing not have standing to pursue matters in their own name, animals – just like the atmosphere – consider the existence of residual human injury before any hurt to them is lawfully redressed. Associate in Nursing wounded human should bring the case and satisfy the relevant standing needs. This has forced animal advocates and environmental teams to craft extremely artificial arguments concerning the ‘injury’ they need suffered, even wherever the case is clearly driven alone by hurt to the animal or the atmosphere. Such arguments area unit usually unsuccessful.
A clear example of the problem round-faced by plaintiffs during this regard is that the North American country Supreme Court case of Sierra Club v. Morton. Sierra Club, Associate in Nursing environmental non-governmental organization (NGO), challenged the event by film maker of a holiday resort within the Mineral King depression, which might cause harm to the valley’s ‘aesthetic and ecological balance’. In one respect, the case painted a ending for environmental organizations as a result of, in considering the question of Sierra Club’s standing, the bulk accepted that ‘injury’ ought to be construed broadly speaking to incorporate ‘aesthetic injury’, stating that ‘[a]esthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, area unit vital ingredients of the standard of life in our society’. Sierra Club even so didn't establish standing as a result of, though the development of the resort would have an effect on the forest’s aesthetics, none of Sierra Club’s members used the world or would be in person affected. Justice Douglas’s famed dissent supported the argument created in ‘Trees’ and declared that ‘[t]he essential question of “standing” would be simplified and additionally place showing neatness into focus if we have a tendency to … allowed environmental problems to be litigated … within the name of the inanimate object on the brink of be sacked, defaced, or invaded’.
In distinction, within the case of Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman, human plaintiffs did reach establishing standing on the idea of ‘aesthetic injury’: the Court accepted that a member of the organization suffered ‘aesthetic injury’ when visiting primates at Associate in Nursing animal park over the course of a year and witnessing their beastly living conditions. However, such successes area unit few and much between and most suffer a similar fate as Sierra Club v. Morton. As Gordon notes, what constitutes Associate in Nursing ‘aesthetic injury’ is very subjective and it's unclear in only that circumstances it'll be established.
Furthermore, standing needs might fully frustrate cases during which the animals don't seem to be visible to the general public. In Animal Lovers Volunteer Association v. Weinberger, for instance, the litigant sought-after to forestall the destruction of a colony of untamed goats living on a military dominion that wasn't in public accessible. However, the litigant was unable to ascertain standing as a result of no individual member of the organization may prove that the death of the goats would end in ‘direct sensory impact’ to the member’s physical atmosphere.
In a strictly procedural sense, then, standing for animals may alter suits to be brought which will presently be prevented from ever reaching the courts. Animals would still have to be compelled to satisfy existing standing needs, however one amongst the best obstacles presently round-faced by human plaintiffs in following animal protection cases – proof of human injury – would be circumvented. moreover, even wherever human plaintiff’s area unit ready to satisfy standing rules in animal protection cases (as in Glickman), standing for animals would arguably lend larger coherence to the law. As Bryant notes, linking the alleged hurt to the first victim (the animal) and avoiding the necessity to ascertain human injury would do less ‘conceptual violence’ to the principle of standing. it'd additionally alter the law to develop in an exceedingly a lot of clear manner by permitting clearer articulation of the interests at stake in animal defending cases and also the extent to that courts can protect such interests. As Stone notes, ‘pitching such cases in partisanship terms distorts what we have a tendency to area unit extremely doing, discouraging the event of a lot of correct and noble discourse