Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Last updated
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 2008
Decided November 12, 2008
Full case nameDonald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Petitioners v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
Docket no. 07-1239
Citations555 U.S. 7 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 365; 172 L. Ed. 2d 249; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 8343
Case history
PriorNat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2008); affirmed, 518 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2008); cert. granted, 554 U.S. 916(2008).
Holding
Military preparedness outweighs environmental concerns, as Navy needs to train its crews to detect modern, silent submarines, and it cannot be forced to turn off its sonar when whales are spotted nearby.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Stevens (Part I)
DissentGinsburg, joined by Souter

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales. [1] [2]

Contents

In balancing military preparedness against environmental concerns, the majority came down solidly on the side of national security. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, “the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of marine mammals that they study and observe”. By contrast, he continued, “forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet”. [3]

Background and procedural history

The U.S. Navy had scheduled 14 training exercises through January 2009 off the coast of Southern California involving the use of “mid-frequency active sonar” to detect enemy submarines. Environmentalists argued that the sonar's high decibel levels may have a deafening effect on whales. They said studies conducted around the world have shown the piercing underwater sounds cause whales to flee in panic or to dive too deeply. Whales have been found beached in Greece, the Canary Islands, and in the Bahamas after sonar was used in the area, and necropsies showed signs of internal bleeding near the ears. [4]

In February 2007, however, the U.S. Navy published an environmental impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that found that the use of mid-frequency active sonar would cause minimal harm to marine mammals. [5] The Navy, represented by Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, "highlight[ed] that there was an 'absence' of injury to marine mammals in Southern California despite forty years of Navy training in the area". [6]

The petitioners were mostly environmental groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society, among others. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the exercises on the ground that they violated NEPA and other environmental laws.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a preliminary injunction barring conduct of the exercises. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the district court modified the preliminary injunction to allow the Navy to use sonar if it used mitigation measures. [7] On the Navy’s second appeal, challenging two of the mitigation measures, the Ninth Circuit—"widely regarded as an environmentally friendly" [8] —affirmed the modified injunction, [9] noting that the plaintiffs (petitioners in the Supreme Court) had carried their burden of showing a “possibility” of irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships weighed in favor of plaintiffs.

Opinion of the court

The majority opinion held that as an initial matter the Ninth Circuit’s "possibility" test for issuance of a preliminary injunction is too lenient; plaintiffs must show that irreparable injury is "likely" in the absence of an injunction. However, the Court continued, even if plaintiffs had shown irreparable injury (and, too, likelihood of success on the merits), it is "plainly outweighed" by the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors. That factor alone requires denial of the requested injunctive relief. For the plaintiffs, the most serious possible injury would be the loss of ability to observe an unknown number of marine mammals. In light of the foregoing, the Court reversed the decision below and vacated the preliminary injunction. The Court technically did not address the merits of the lawsuit—that is, whether the training exercises had violated NEPA or the other federal environmental laws.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice David Souter, wrote a dissenting opinion which sided with the Ninth Circuit. She found that despite the importance of the U.S. Navy’s training exercises, they did not outweigh the considerations of environmental harm mandated by NEPA. [10]

Comments

A report published in 2009 by the Congressional Research Service noted that the Supreme Court accepted the case "as a challenge to a preliminary injunction, rather than to the merits of petitioners’ statutory claims". However, the report observed that "the Court made clear, however, that its perception of an overriding national security interest in the challenged training exercises should lead the district court to reject a final injunction as well, in the event the military is found to have violated an environmental statute". [8]

This was the first time the United States successfully got the judiciary to reject the Ninth Circuit’s “mere possibility” test for issuing injunctions.

Other commentators called it "a dangerous precedent" and "a troubling example of unquestioned deference to an invocation of military necessity at the expense of the environment" and said that it "signal[ed] a marked shift from lower courts’ treatment of NEPA injunctions, raising questions about the availability of restraining orders for NEPA violations in the future". [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Environmental Policy Act</span> United States federal environmental law (enacted 1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

Earthjustice is a nonprofit public interest organization based in the United States dedicated to litigating environmental issues. Headquartered in San Francisco, they have an international program, a communications team, and a policy and legislation team in Washington, D.C., along with 14 regional offices across the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cetacean stranding</span> Phenomenon in which a whale becomes stuck on a beach, often causing the whales death

Cetacean stranding, commonly known as beaching, is a phenomenon in which whales and dolphins strand themselves on land, usually on a beach. Beached whales often die due to dehydration, collapsing under their own weight, or drowning when high tide covers the blowhole. Cetacean stranding has occurred since before recorded history.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should be issued.

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Illston</span> American judge

Susan Yvonne Illston is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1995. She assumed senior status in 2013.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.

An irreparable injury is, in equity, "the type of harm which no monetary compensation can cure or put conditions back the way they were."

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marine mammals and sonar</span> Marine mammals and sonar

The interactions between marine mammals and sonar have been a subject of debate since the invention of the technology.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<i>Diaz v. Brewer</i> Lawsuit regarding healthcare benefits

Diaz v. Brewer, originally Collins v. Brewer No. 2:09-cv-02402-JWS (Az.Dist.Ct.), is a lawsuit heard on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court's issuance of a preliminary injunction that prevented Arizona from implementing its 2009 statute that would have terminated the eligibility for healthcare benefits of any state employee's same-sex domestic partner.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

<i>Hedges v. Obama</i> American legal case

Hedges v. Obama was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". The plaintiffs contended that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.

<i>Juliana v. United States</i> 2015 lawsuit

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a "guardian for future generations". Some fossil fuel and industry groups initially intervened as defendants but later requested to be dropped following the 2016 presidential election, stating that the case would be well defended under the new administration.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

<i>HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn</i> 2019 United States court case

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, was a United States Ninth Circuit case about web scraping. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, preventing LinkedIn from denying the plaintiff, hiQ Labs, from accessing LinkedIn's publicly available LinkedIn member profiles. hiQ is a small data analytics company that used automated bots to scrape information from public LinkedIn profiles.

In United States law, the Purcell principle is the doctrine that courts should not change election rules too close to an election, because of the risk of causing confusion. It is named after Purcell v. Gonzalez, a 2006 case from the U.S. Supreme Court's emergency docket, or shadow docket. It is frequently invoked by the Supreme Court and lower courts to allow elections to proceed under a state's preferred voting requirements, maps, and other rules.

References

  1. ↑ Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. ↑ Markon, Jerry; Eilperin, Juliet (October 8, 2008). "NOAA, Court Focus On Marine Mammals: Ship Speed Limited; Sonar Use Debated". Washington Post .
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (2008-11-12). "Supreme Court Rules for Navy in Sonar Case". New York Times .
  4. ↑ Savage, David G.; Weiss, Kenneth R. (November 12, 2008). "Ruling unlikely to quell sonar storm". Los Angeles Times .
  5. ↑ Alexander, Kristina (February 18, 2009). Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy's Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
  6. ↑ Menaka Kalaskar (October 13, 2008). "Argument Recap: Winter v. NRDC". SCOTUSblog.
  7. ↑ Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 530F. Supp. 2d1110 ( C.D. Cal. 2008).
  8. 1 2 Meltz, Robert (February 27, 2009). The Supreme Court Accepts Five Environmental Cases During Its 2008–2009 Term (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
  9. ↑ Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518F.3d658 ( 9th Cir. 2008).
  10. ↑ Ginsberg, Ruth Bader (November 12, 2008). "55 U. S. (2008) 1 GINSBURG, J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07–123". cornell.edu. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
  11. ↑ Lightbody, Lisa (2009). "Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc." (PDF). Harvard Environmental Law Review. 33: 593–607.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.