Sierra Club v. Clay County Board of Adjustment, 959 N.W.2d 615

Background:

Travis and Jill Mockler applied for a conditional-use permit to operate a CAFO in Clay County; the Planning Commission approved and Sierra Club appealed to the County Board of Adjustment.
The Board affirmed the permit with additional conditions; Sierra Club then filed a verified petition in circuit court under SDCL chapter 11-2 seeking certiorari, alleging due-process violations, bias, wrong tribunal heard the appeal, and environmental harms.
The Mocklers and the Board moved to dismiss under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(1), arguing Sierra Club lacked standing (both in its own right and representationally) and that standing at the inter-agency level was contested.
The circuit court treated the motion as a facial attack and dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding Sierra Club not a "person aggrieved" in its own right and that representational standing required participation/evidence from individual members.
On appeal the South Dakota Supreme Court held mandamus relief was not pled/available, affirmed Sierra Club lacked organizational standing in its own right, but reversed the dismissal as to representational standing (association may sue for members and members need not be parties); the case was remanded.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition asserts a mandamus claim under SDCL 11-2-35	Sierra Club: liberal notice pleading suffices to construe petition as seeking mandamus even without magic words	Mocklers/Board: petition seeks certiorari; SDCL 11-2-61.1 makes certiorari the exclusive remedy for conditional-use permit appeals	Court: Not mandamus; certiorari is the exclusive statutory avenue, so mandamus unavailable
Whether Sierra Club has standing in its own right under SDCL 11-2-61	Sierra Club: it is a "person" and was aggrieved by due-process defects and environmental harms from the CAFO	Mocklers/Board: Sierra Club alleged only generalized/public environmental interests, not a personal or pecuniary injury required for "person aggrieved" status	Court: Affirmed dismissal — Sierra Club lacks individual organizational standing because it failed to allege a personal/pecuniary injury
Whether Sierra Club has representational (associational) standing	Sierra Club: members own land nearby and would be aggrieved; interests germane; requested relief (revocation/remand) benefits members and does not require members as parties	Mocklers/Board: standing was contested below so bare pleading insufficient; Sierra Club should have submitted affidavits proving members are aggrieved	Court: Reversed dismissal on this ground — pleadings sufficiently allege members would be aggrieved, interests are germane, and individual members need not be parties (though affidavits/testimony may later be required)

Key Cases Cited

Huber v. Hanson Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 936 N.W.2d 565 (S.D. 2019) (pleading/form of writ evaluated under SDCL 11-2 framework)
Cable v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 769 N.W.2d 817 (S.D. 2009) (standing burden and when factual support/affidavits convert a pleading-stage challenge)
Powers v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 951 N.W.2d 284 (S.D. 2020) (application of "person aggrieved" test under SDCL 11-2-61)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (organizations need more than an abstract interest to be "aggrieved")
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (injury must be personal and not one suffered in common by the public)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (procedural-rights standing requires a concrete interest protected by the procedure)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (deprivation of a procedural right without a concrete interest is insufficient for standing)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (three-part test for associational standing)
Sorrel v. Queen of Peace Hosp., 575 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 1998) (standards for mandamus: clear legal right and definite duty to perform)