Appendix 33: Abstracts of Selected Supreme Court Litigation Under NEPA

• Author: Nicholas C. Yost
• Pages: 573-578

Abstracts of Selected Supreme Court Litigation Under NEPA Page 573

Monsanto Co. v. Gee rtson Seed Farms, 130 S.

Ct. 2743 (June 21, 2010)

e U.S. Supreme Court held that a distr ict court

abused its discretion in enjoini ng the Animal and

Plant Health Inspect ion Service (A PHIS) from eect-

ing a partia l deregulation of Roundup Ready Alfal fa

(RR A), a variety of al falfa genetically engineered to

tolerate the herbicide Roundup, and in prohibiting the

planting of RR A pending the Agency’s completion of

an EIS under NEPA. Petitioners and the government

do not dispute that APHIS’ dereg ulation decision

violated NEPA, but they chal lenge the scope of the

relief granted. None of the four factors for g ranting

permanent injunctive relief support s the district court’s

order enjoining APHIS from part ially deregulating

RR A during the pendency of t he EIS process. Most

importantly, respondents cannot show that t hey will

suer irreparable injur y if APHIS is allowed to pro-

ceed with any par tial deregulation. And becau se it was

inappropriate for the district cou rt to foreclose even

the possibility of a par tial and temporary deregulat ion,

it follows that it was inappropriate to enjoin plant-

ing in accordance w ith such a deregulation decision.

An injunction is a dra stic and extraordinary remedy

that should not be granted as a m atter of course. If,

as respondents concede, a less d rastic remedy (such

as partia l or complete vacatur of A PHIS’ deregula-

tion decision) was sucient to redress t heir injury, no

recourse to the additiona l and extraordinary relief of

an injunction was war ranted. e Court, therefore,

reversed and remanded t he Ninth Circuit decision

arming t he district court.

Winter v. Natural R esources Defense Council,

555 U.S. 7 (Nov. 12, 2008)

e U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court’s

preliminar y injunction concerning t he Navy’s use of

“mid-frequency active” (MFA) sonar during i ntegrated

training e xercises in the waters o sout hern Californ ia

(SOCAL). e plaintis —groups and individuals

devoted to the protection of marine ma mmals and

ocean habitats —assert that MFA sonar causes ser i-

ous injuries to these ani mals. e Navy disputes that

claim, noting that M FA sonar trainin g in SOCAL

waters has been conducted for 40 yea rs without a

single documented sonar-related injury to a ny marine

mammal. Pla intis sued the Navy, seeking declarator y

and injunctive relief on the grounds t hat the training

exercises violated NEPA and other federa l laws; in par-

ticular, plainti s contend that the Navy shou ld have

prepared an environmenta l impact statement before

conducting the latest round of SOC AL exercises.

e district cour t entered a preliminar y injunction

prohibiting the Navy from using M FA sonar during

its training e xercises. e Court of A ppeals held that

this injunction was overbroad a nd remanded to the

district cour t for a narrower remedy. e district cour t

then entered another prelimina ry injunction, imposing

six restrictions on the Nav y’s use of sonar during its

SOCAL tra ining exercises. e Navy then sought relief

from the Executive Branch, a nd the CEQ authorized

the Navy to implement “alternative arra ngements”

to NEPA compliance in light of “emergency circum-

stances.” e CEQ allowed the Nav y to continue its

training e xercises under voluntar y mitigation proce-

dures that the Navy h ad previously adopted. In light

of the CEQ’s actions, the Navy moved to vacate the

district cour t’s preliminary injunct ion. e district

court refuse d to do so, and the Court of Appe als

armed. e Cour t of Appeals held that there was a

serious question whether the CEQ’s interpretation of

the “emergency circumsta nces” regulation was lawful,

that plainti s had carried their burden of establish-

ing a “possibility” of irrepa rable injury, and that the

preliminar y injunction was appropriate becau se the

balance of hard ships and consideration of the public

interest favored the plainti s. But the Supreme Court

disagreed, vac ating the preliminary injunction to t he

extent challenged by t he Navy. e balance of equi-

ties and the public interest tip st rongly in favor of the

Navy. e Navy’s need to conduct realistic tra ining

with active sonar to resp ond to the threat posed by

enemy submarines plain ly outweighs the intere sts

advanced by the plainti s.

Norton v. Souther n Utah Wilderness All iance,

542 U.S. 55 (June 14, 2004)

e U.S. Supreme Court held that a distr ict court

lacked subject matter juris diction to review an environ-

mental group’s claims that the Bure au of Land Man-

agement (BLM) violated the Federa l Land Policy and

Management Act (FL PMA) and NEPA by not properly

managing o-road vehic le (ORV) use on federal lands

classied as w ilderness study areas (WSA s). e Tenth

Circuit reversed the dis trict court’s dismissal of the

claims, but the Supreme Court held th at BLM’s alleged

failures to act a re not remediable under the APA. A n

APA §706(1) claim can procee d only where a plainti

asserts th at an agency failed to take a dis crete agency

action that it is required to ta ke. Here, the group

claims that BL M violated FLPMA’s nonimpairment

mandate by permittin g ORV use in certai n WSAs. But

Abstracts of Selected U.S. Supreme Court Cases