Sierra Club v. Department of the Interior

398 F. Supp. 284 (1975)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sierra Club v. Department of the Interior

United States District Court for the Northern District of California
398 F. Supp. 284 (1975)

Facts

In 1968, the United States Congress passed the Redwood National Park Act (redwood act) to preserve coastal redwood forests. The redwood act authorized the secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (defendant) to take private land in exchange for just compensation near Redwood National Park (the park) if taking the land would prevent damage to park resources. The secretary had the power to modify the boundaries of the park to protect streams and timber. The secretary also had the power and to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with nearby landowners to ensure that activities such as logging would not adversely affect park resources. Further, the secretary had a general fiduciary duty to conserve natural resources in national parks. Starting in 1969, the secretary conducted studies of the damage and threats of damage to the park caused by logging on land near the park. The studies resulted in recommendations of actions for the secretary to take to minimize such damage. The recommendations included the acquisition of land to enlarge park boundaries, the acquisition of management zones and easements, the acquisition of land along streams, and the imposition of a logging moratorium along streams. The secretary did not implement any of the recommendations except entering into purported cooperative agreements with nearby timber companies. The secretary also directed further studies to be conducted. The cooperative agreements with the timber companies were not legally binding, enforceable contracts because the agreements had not been properly executed. Further, the language of the agreements was practically meaningless, and even if the agreements were enforceable, they were inadequate to prevent or minimize the ongoing damage to park resources caused by logging. The only positive result from the agreements was a mere voluntary abstention from logging within 800 feet of the park for several years. The Sierra Club (plaintiff) sued the secretary, alleging that the secretary’s actions in failing to implement the recommendations to protect the park were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, which violated the redwood act and the secretary’s general fiduciary duty to protect the park.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweigert, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership