Court Opinion

ID: 9427263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:14.023759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:05.669938
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
In the light of my Brother Powell’s dissenting opinion, I am far less convinced than is the Court that the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq. (1976 ed.), was intended to prohibit the completion of the Tellico Dam. But the very difficulty and doubtfulness of the correct answer to this legal question convinces me that the Act did not prohibit the District Court from refusing, in the exercise of its traditional equitable powers, to enjoin petitioner from completing the Dam. Section 11 (g) (1) of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 1540 (g) (1) (1976 ed.), merely provides that “any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf ... to enjoin any person, including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agency . . . , who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter.” It also grants the district courts “jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce any such provision.”
This Court had occasion in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321 (1944), to construe language in an Act of Congress that lent far greater support to a conclusion that Congress intended an injunction to issue as a matter of right than does the language just quoted. There the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 provided that
“[u]pon a showing by the Administrator that [a] person has engaged or is about to engage in any [acts or practices violative of this Act] a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall he granted without bond.” 56 Stat. 33 (emphasis added).
But in Hecht this Court refused to find even in such language an intent on the part of Congress to require that a *212district court issue an injunction as a matter of course without regard to established equitable considerations, saying:
“Only the other day we stated that 'An appeal to the equity jurisdiction conferred on federal district courts is an appeal to the sound discretion which guides the determinations of courts of equity.’. . . The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it. The qualities of mercy and practicality have made equity the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims. We do not believe that such a major departure from that long tradition as is here proposed should be lightly implied. ... [I]f Congress desired to make such an abrupt departure from traditional equity practice as is suggested, it would have made its desire plain.” 321 U. S., at 329-330.
Only by sharply retreating from the principle of statutory construction announced in Hecht Co. could I agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding in this case that the judicial enforcement provisions contained in § 11 (g)(1) of the Act require automatic issuance of an injunction by the district courts once a violation is found. I choose to adhere to Hecht Co.’s teaching:
“A grant of jurisdiction to issue compliance orders hardly suggests an absolute duty to do so under any and all circumstances. We cannot but think that if Congress had intended to make such a drastic departure from the traditions of equity practice, an unequivocal statement of its purpose would have been made.” 321 U. S., at 329.
Since the District Court possessed discretion to refuse injunc-tive relief even though it had found a violation of the Act, the *213only remaining question is whether this discretion was abused in denying respondents’ prayer for an injunction. Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri, K. & T. R. .Co., 363 U. S. 528, 535 (1960). The District Court denied respondents injunctive relief because of the significant public and social harms that would flow from such relief and because of the demonstrated good faith of petitioner. As the Court recognizes, ante, at 193, such factors traditionally have played a central role in the decisions of equity courts whether to deny an injunction. See also 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 65.18 [3] (1972); Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 440-441 (1944). This Court has specifically held that a federal court can refuse to order a federal official to take specific action, even though the action might be required by law, if such an order "would work a public injury or embarrassment” or otherwise “be prejudicial to the public interest.” United States ex rel. Greathouse v. Dern, 289 U. S. 352, 360 (1933). Here the District Court, confronted with conflicting evidence of congressional purpose, was on even stronger ground in refusing the injunction.
Since equity is “the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs,” Hecht Co., supra, at 329-330, a decree in one case will seldom be the exact counterpart of a decree in another. See, e. g., Eccles v. People’s Bank, 333 U. S. 426 (1948); Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Austin, 168 U. S. 685 (1898). Here the District Court recognized that Congress, when it enacted the Endangered Species Act, made the preservation of the habitat of the snail darter an important public concern. But it concluded that this interest on one side of the balance was more than outweighed by other equally significant factors. These factors, further elaborated in the dissent of my Brother Powell, satisfy me that the District Court’s refusal to issue an injunction was not an abuse of its discretion. I therefore dissent from the Court’s opinion holding otherwise.