Real Estate & Property Law

Oral Arguments in Navy Sonar Case

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., No. 07-1239, the case about the Navy's use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in training exercises off the California coast.  My Damon Key colleague Mark Murakami has posted a copy of the transcript on his hawaiioceanlaw blog here and also points out that one of the questions by Chief Justice Roberts captured the essence of the amicus brief he and I filed on behalf of nine admirals and several civic organizations:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think that's -- I think that's quite right. My question, though, is that at no point that did the district judge undertake a balancing of the equities, putting on the one side the potential for harm to marine mammals that she found -- and that's your point about the record -- and putting on the other side the potential that a North Korean diesel electric submarine will get within range of Pearl Harbor undetected. Now, I think that's a pretty clear balance. And the district court never entered -- never went into that analysis.

Tr. at 48 (emphasis added).  The Washington Post reported on the arguments here. This case has implications beyond protecting marine mammals and the Navy's use of sonar, as the Court has been asked by the government and amici to examine the standards applicable to injunctions in NEPA cases. 

Mark has posted a resource page with all the briefs and links to media reports here.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on October 08, 2008 (boomark / email).