Ninth Circuit Wrong Again - Navy Sonar Case

In a decision entered Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned decisions of the U.S. District Court for he Central District of California, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In plain and unmistakable language Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority stated: The Court of Appeals was wrong and its decision is reversed. and the District Court abused its discretion.

The controversy at issue:

The District Court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from using MFA sonar during its training exercises. The Court of Appeals held that this injunction was overbroad and remanded to the District Court for a narrower remedy. The District Court then entered another preliminary injunction, imposing six restrictions on the Navy’s use of sonar during its SOCAL training exercises. As relevant to this case, the injunction required the Navy to shut down MFA sonar when a marine mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel, and to power down sonar by 6 decibels during conditions known as “surface ducting.”

In reviewing the opinion the court looked at the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. This act permits the Secretary of Defense to exempt any action from the MMPA if such actions are necessary for the national defense, and accordingly the Deputy Secretary of Defense granted the Navy a two year exemption from the MMPA for the training exercises.

The case also weighed whether possible degradation in the study of marine mammals outweighed the interest of national defense. The court reasoned:

These interests must be weighed against the possible harm to the ecological, scientific, and recreational interests that are legitimately before this Court. Plaintiffs have submitted declarations asserting that they take whale watching trips, observe marine mammals underwater, conduct scientific research on marine mammals, and photograph these animals in their natural habitats. Plaintiffs contend that the Navy’s use of MFA sonar will injure marine mammals or alter their behavioral patterns,impairing plaintiffs’ ability to study and observe the animals.

While we do not question the seriousness of these interests, we conclude that the balance of equities and consideration of the overall public interest in this case tip strongly in favor of the Navy. For the plaintiffs, the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals that they study and observe. In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet. Active sonar is the only reliable technology for detecting and tracking enemy diesel-electric submarines, and the President—the Commander in Chief—has deter-mined that training with active sonar is “essential to national security.” Pet. App. 232a. The public interest in conducting training exercises with active sonar under realistic conditions plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plaintiffs.

Our thanks to the Supreme Court for upholding the primary duty of the government under the Constitution: to provide for the common defense.