Divided Supreme Court Rules for Navy in Sonar Case

UPDATE: In a conference call with reporters, Joel Reynolds, director of the NRDC's marine mammal program, has just described today's decision as a "narrow ruling" that leaves in place most of the environmental restrictions placed on the Navy's sonar training exercises. "The court did not upset the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement."

--

The first decision the Supreme Court issues every term is often an easy case, with few concurrences or dissents -- a case, in short, that the justices can turn around quickly by November after argument in October. But not this term.

The Court's first ruling, issued this morning in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, reflects sharp division of the kind that could have stalled a decision until next year sometime. It comprises a 24-page majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., an 11-page partial concurrence and partial dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer, and a 12-page dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Because of Breyer's writing, the ruling is 7-2 on one holding and 6-3 on others.

The bottom line was a victory for the Navy in its effort to blunt the restrictions imposed by lower courts on its sonar training exercises off the California coast. Roberts wrote that he accepted assertions by senior Navy officials that the use of sonar "under realistic conditions during training exercises is of the utmost importance to the Navy and the Nation." As a result, Roberts said, the public interest outweighed the possible damage to marine mammals caused by sonar testing and training. Environmental groups had argued that the sonar, used to detect submarines, injures certain whales and dolphins, but Robert asserted that no documented case of injury has occurred in 40 years of sonar training. The ruling leaves in place some of the restrictions on the testing that went unchallenged by the Navy.

In early reaction, the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the Navy, applauded the decision. "The Supreme Court made very clear that when a district court considers whether to impose an injunction on military training deemed important to national security by the Commander in Chief, that interest outweighs any possible claim of possible injury to the environment," said the foundation's Paul Kamenar. 

More on the ruling later at legaltimes.com.

CORRECTION: The first version of this post misstated the Court's vote tally. It has been corrected above.