In issuing a deliberately narrow ruling yesterday in a controversial
case involving whales and the U.S. Navy, the Supreme Court strongly
indicated that it intends to defer to the military in future disputes
pitting national security against environmental concerns.
The justices voted 6 to 3 to lift restrictions on the Navy's use of
sonar off the Southern California coast, backing the military in a
longstanding battle over whether anti-submarine training harms marine
mammals. Environmentalists say the exercises disrupt habitats and leave
the mammals with permanent hearing loss and decompression sickness. But
the Navy argued that the training missions are essential to detecting a
new generation of "quiet" submarines deployed by China, North Korea and
other potential adversaries.
"We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs' ecological,
scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals," Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the first decision of the court's
current term. "Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the
Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it
is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines."
Roberts was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr.,
Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John
Paul Stevens agreed with the ruling, while Justice Stephen G. Breyer
agreed in part but also dissented. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a
full dissent, which was seconded by Justice David H. Souter.
Although the majority tailored its decision on narrow legal grounds
and indicated that future environmental disputes will be decided on a
case-by-case basis, the court made sweeping statements of deference to
military judgments. Roberts unquestioningly accepted the assertion of
top Navy officers that the exercises "are of utmost importance to the
Navy and the Nation," writing that "the proper determination of where
the public interest lies does not strike us as a close question."
The Navy's argument had raised broad questions about the military's
obligation to obey environmental laws as well as the constitutional
separation of powers. The Bush administration, relying on positions it
has advanced in national security cases since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks, had raised fears among environmentalists by trying to exempt
the military from several environmental laws and essentially override a
court decision that imposed restrictions on the exercises.
Roberts deliberately skirted such broad arguments, writing that the
court would not "address the underlying merits" of the Navy's
assertions and that "of course, military interests do not always trump
other considerations, and we have not held that they do."
Still, Navy leaders hailed the decision, saying it would enable them
to continue carrying out vital training missions before units are
deployed to the Middle East and other global hot spots. "This case was
vital to our Navy and nation's security, and we are pleased with the
Supreme Court's decision," Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter said in a
statement. "We can now continue to train our sailors effectively, under
realistic combat conditions, and certify our crews 'combat ready' while
continuing to be good stewards of the marine environment."
Environmentalists offered a mixed appraisal, with some suggesting
that the Navy could take additional precautions to protect endangered
species without jeopardizing national security. The majority justices
"decided to turn a deaf ear to the substantive issues and scientific
evidence presented in this case," said Nathan Herschler, a legal fellow
at the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the Navy over the
exercises, took comfort in the decision's narrow language and pointed
out that four of the six restrictions imposed by a lower court remain.
The Navy had challenged two of the restrictions. Environmental groups
had said that an adverse ruling could free the government to take other
potentially harmful actions without studying their effects on the
environment. But Eric Glitzenstein, a lawyer who filed a brief on
behalf of the groups, including the Sierra Club, said those concerns
have been mollified. "I don't see this as having dire effects on
environmental litigation, particularly as it pertains to wildlife," he
At issue in the case was the Navy's use of loud, mid-frequency sonar
during 14 anti-submarine training exercises off the Southern California
coast that began in February 2007 and are scheduled to end in January.
The defense council sued in federal court to stop or modify the use of
sonar. The Navy maintains that the coastal waters are the best place to
conduct the exercises, but the habitat is shared by 37 species of
marine mammals, including whales, dolphins and sea lions.
A federal court in California issued an injunction requiring the
Navy, among other restrictions, to shut down the sonar when a marine
mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel and to power down the
sonar when certain water conditions were detected. An appeals court
upheld the injunction, and the Navy took the case to the Supreme Court.
Roberts noted in his opinion that the two sides strongly disputed
the extent to which the exercises harm the marine mammals or disrupt
their behavioral patterns.
The Navy contended that to obtain a preliminary injunction, the
plaintiffs had to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable injury to the
mammals, not simply the possibility, and that the alleged injuries were
too speculative to justify the injunction.
The majority agreed and decided the case on that narrow ground,
ruling that the standard used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit in upholding the preliminary injunction was "too lenient" and
said the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that irreparable injury was
likely without the restrictions.
"Even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury from the Navy's
training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public
interest and the Navy's interest in effective, realistic training of
its sailors," Roberts wrote.
In her dissent, Ginsburg said a Navy environmental assessment had predicted "irreparable" harm to marine mammals.
"In my view, this likely harm . . . cannot be lightly dismissed,
even in the face of an alleged risk to the effectiveness of the Navy's
14 training exercises," Ginsburg wrote. "There is no doubt that the
training exercises serve critical interests. But those interests do not
authorize the Navy to violate a statutory command."
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.