The Supreme Court of the United States took up a case of whale-like proportions today, literally. In what could be titled United States Navy v. All Marine Mammals (the name for the case is actually Winter (Navy Secretary) v. National Resources Defense Council, et al.) the SCOTUS ruled in favor the the navy, even though environmentalists argue that the sonar is detrimental to marine life. The court ruled 6-3 on the case, however, the larger issue in the case (whether or not the Navy must write an Environmental Impact Statement) was largely ignored.
- “The Supreme Court, dividing 6-3, upheld the Navy’s power to use sonar in military training exercises, even though environmentalists claim that the technology threatens marine life in the training zone off the Pacific Coast. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote for the majority; there were two full dissents and one partial dissent.” – from Court rules for Navy in sonar use, at SCOTUSblog
- “It’s a loud, sad day off the coast of California: the Supreme Court today ruled in favor of the Navy and against environmentalists who argued that military sonar frequencies kill whales. “The balance of equities and the public interest … tip strongly in favor of the Navy,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. “The Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plaintiffs.”” – from Supreme Court: National Security Trumps Whales, Environmental Law, at Wired Science
- “In October, the High Court heard arguments in a case pitting the U.S. Navy against, essentially, whales off the California coast. Today, the whales lost. Here’s the opinion. The Court, in its first decision of the term, ruled the Navy needs to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats by enemy submarines.” – from Navy Wins, Whales Lose at High Court, at WSJ.com Law Blog
- “We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals. 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. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice John Paul Stevens joined as to Part I. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice David Souter joined.” – from Supreme Court rules against environmentalists in Navy sonar case, at JURIST – Paper Chase
- “In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court decided the US Navy can conduct sonar tests without restrictions off the coast of Southern California. Environmental groups, including the National Resource Defense Council, brought the lawsuit against the Navy, claiming that the intense sound waves from the Navy’s sonar arrays can injure and even kill ocean life. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, a lower court ruled the Navy had to shut down their mild-frequency active sonar (MFA) when a marine mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel and lower the frequency of the sonar during certain ocean conditions.” – from Supreme Court Says Navy Can Test Sonar, at Outside Blog
Comments