Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Issues
Whether under NEPA the CEQ could make "alternative arrangements" that allowed the Navy to continue using MFA sonar in its training exercises off the coast of southern California without filing an EIS because the District Court’s conditional preliminary injunction constituted "emergency circumstances."
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction on the "mere possibility of irreparable harm," and also by not deferring to the CEQ’s findings.
On March 22, 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") sued the United States Navy in the District Court for the Central District of California to enjoin the Navy from conducting training exercises off the coast of southern California. Specifically, the NRDC sought to prevent the Navy from using mid-frequency active ("MFA") sonar during these exercises because such use harmed whales and other marine mammals, in violation of several environmental laws. The District Court concluded in January 2008 that NRDC had proven that allowing the exercises to continue would cause near certain harm to the environment and issued a preliminary injunction. In response to the injunction, both the President and the Council for Environmental Quality ("CEQ") exempted the Navy from two environmental statutes, finding that emergency circumstances existed which allowed the training to continue. The District Court, however, found the exemptions were improper and upheld its preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Navy challenges this decision by arguing that courts below used too lax of a standard when deciding that a preliminary injunction was justified and that the judiciary improperly interfered with the executive branch’s authority to control the military. How the Supreme Court decides this case will not only reflect its view on balancing environmental protection and national security, but also clarify the roles each Federal branch has in these matters.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
1. Whether CEQ permissibly construed its own regulation in finding "emergency circumstances."
2. Whether, in any event, the preliminary injunction, based on a preliminary finding that the Navy had not satisfied NEPA’s procedural requirements, is inconsistent with established equitable principles limiting discretionary injunctive relief.
The United States Navy uses mid-frequency active ("MFA") sonar to detect submerged submarines. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (hereinafter NRDC).
Edited by
Additional Resources
· NY Times: Justices Take Case on Navy Use of Sonar
· Law.com: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Navy Sonar Case
· LII Law about . . . Environmental Law