Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council
| Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 8, 2008 Decided November 12, 2008 |
|
| Full case name | Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, et al., Petitioners v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. |
| Docket nos. | 07-1239 |
| Citations | 555 U.S. 7 (more)
129 S.Ct. 365
|
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| 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 | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer, joined by Stevens |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, 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.
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”.
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.
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. 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".
...
Wikipedia