Sierra Club v. Department of the Interior
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
376 F. Supp. 90 (1974)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 stated that the National Park Service should promote measures consistent with the purpose of conserving the natural objects within national parks for the enjoyment of future generations. In 1968, Congress enacted the Redwood National Park Act (RNPA), which established Redwood National Park (park) with the goal of preserving examples of primeval redwood forest. The RNPA empowered the secretary of the interior (secretary) to acquire interests in land and to execute contracts with landowners to provide as much protection as reasonably possible for the timber, soil, and streams within the park. The designated area of the park and areas near the park included some private lands, which were being logged. The Sierra Club (SC) (plaintiff) asked the secretary to stop the logging. The secretary asked for the logging companies to stop voluntarily but did nothing more. The SC then sued the Department of the Interior (department) (defendant) in district court, arguing that logging upstream and uphill from the park left the park vulnerable to mudslides and other hazards. The department filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sweigert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 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.