Sierra Club v. Morton

How later courts described this case

• recognizing a trend in environmental cases "discarding the notion that an injury that is widely shared is ipso facto not an injury sufficient to provide the basis for judicial review....Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact that particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the legal process. "
• recognizing a trend "discarding the notion that an injury that is widely shared is ipso facto not an injury sufficient to provide the basis for judicial review. . . . Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society, and the fact that particular environmental interests are ‘shared by the 11 many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process."
• holding that “a mere ‘interest in a problem,’ no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization ‘adversely affected’ or ‘aggrieved’ within the meaning of the APA” and that a party seeking review must allege facts showing that the party is itself adversely affected and has a direct stake in the outcome.
• holding that environmental group lacked standing because “[n]owhere in the pleadings or affidavits did the [group] state that its members use [the affected area] for any purpose, much less that they use it in any way that would be significantly affected by the proposed actions of the respondents” (emphases added)

Written by the judges who cited it.