Opinion

Sierra Club v. Hickel

  • 467 F.2d 1048
  • 4 ERC 1610
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Sep 22, 1972
Status
Published
Author
McCree
On the bench
Feikens, McCree, Weick
Cited by
14 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.6%

holding that, because “the Secretary [of the Interior] had discretion [under the Refuge Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act] to determine whether he should enter into the agreement for the exchange of the lands, his action in so doing is not reviewable by the courts.”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that, because “the Secretary [of the Interior] had discretion [under the Refuge Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act] to determine whether he should enter into the agreement for the exchange of the lands, his action in so doing is not reviewable by the courts.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McCREE, Circuit Judge

(concurring).

I agree that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs’ action against the Secretary. See Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57 , 83 S.Ct. 1052 , 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 , 83 S.Ct. 999 , 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643 , 82 S.Ct. 980 , 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962); Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corporation, 337 U.S. 682 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); see generally Cramton, Nonstatutory Review of Federal Administrative Action: The Need for Statutory Reform of Sovereign Immunity, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and Parties Defendant, 68 Mich.L.Rev. 387 (1970); Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1963). And since this action cannot be maintained against the Secretary, an independent basis for suing the utility companies must appear in the amended complaint, and my examination of the pleadings discloses none. The complaint, construed most favorably to the plaintiffs, does not contend that in the land exchange the nongovernmental defendants injured rights possessed. by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, I believe that the complaint was properly dismissed. It should be emphasized that this dismissal intimates no view on any subsequent action that might be brought by plaintiffs against the utilities to determine the rights and duties of the parties respecting the utilization of Navarre Marsh.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.