Standing lingers as a problem for environmental groups, whose lawyers, even after Sierra Club v. Morton, 2 ELR 20192 (U.S. Apr. 19, 1972), must continue to brief and argue the point. The trend of the cases, however, definitely continues toward liberalized standing, as ELR suggested in our earlier comment on the Mineral King decision (2 ELR 10034). Although a number of federal courts have been required to consider whether environmental organizations can bring suit in their own name after the Supreme Court's ruling, only three decisions have actually denied standing to such groups, and two of those decisions are clearly incorrect. The trend of the decisions is toward a wide recognition that environmental groups may be so involved as organizations in representing the ecological interests of their members that the organizations are as well-qualified as anyone to bring suit. In any event, although groups may wish to have standing for themselves on the basis of minimal allegations of interest and harm, the Mineral King decision appears to require only minor changes in pleading so that individuals or named members allege specific harm.

Several post-Mineral King cases deserve mention. In Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 ELR 20228 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1972), an appeal by a nationwide membership organization from EPA's refusal to suspend all registered uses of the pesticides Aldrin and Dieldrin pending final decision on cancellation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the court held that EDF had standing. EDF had participated in the administrative proceedings that led to the appeal, and the government had failed to question whether EDF was a "person who will be adversely affected" by an order (7 U.S.C. §135b(d)). Acting sua sponte, the court reviewed the Mineral King decision and concluded that it: