|
''Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council'', 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court on October 8, 2008, concerning 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”. ==Background and procedural history== 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() that there was an 'absence' of injury to marine mammals in Southern California despite forty years of Navy training in the area". The petitioners were mostly environmental groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society, among others. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the exercises on the ground that they violated NEPA and other environmental laws. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a preliminary injunction barring conduct of the exercises. On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the district court modified the preliminary injunction to allow the Navy to use sonar if it used mitigation measures. On the Navy’s second appeal, challenging two of the mitigation measures, the Ninth Circuit—"widely regarded as an environmentally friendly"〔—affirmed the modified injunction,〔(''Natural Resources Defense Council v. Winter'' ) 518 F.3d 658 (9 Cir. 2008).〕 noting that the plaintiffs (petitioners in the Supreme Court) had carried their burden of showing a “possibility” of irreparable injury and that the balance of hardships weighed in favor of plaintiffs. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|