One notable group in support of the petitioners is the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a California-based legal organization established to support pro-business causes. According to vice president David Stirling, Winter presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn the ESA’s status as a ‘super statute’, citing various examples in his support. (Stirling 2008) A personal communication with Steven Gieseler, the PLF lawyer who wrote the Amicus Brief in support of the petitioners, confirms the organization’s intent to shift power away from environmental statutes when he writes that “the main reason for [my satisfaction with the opinion’s balancing test] is that such tests had been off limits in environmental cases in recent history.” (personal correspondence, April 16, 2009) C. The Interests of Environmental Protection: the Respondents. Just as the petitioners’ supporters fielded a range of motives, the respondents were concerned about issues ranging from species protection to limits on presidential power. Whereas the petitioners frame the issue as a case of “the Navy knows best and the environmentalists are saying they can’t protect us”, the environmentalist respondents frame the issue as follows: “both national security and marine mammals can thrive as long as the Navy follows these mitigation measures.” I will address the views and concerns of two different kinds of petitioners: the marine mammal protection community, and the separation of powers community. The most obvious stakeholders are the respondents themselves, the NRDC and its the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, and the Ocean Futures Society and its founding president, Jean-Michel Cousteau. The two most prominent legal figures in the respondents’ camp are Joel Reynolds, NRDC senior attorney, and Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel and oral argument presenter. Their views on the outcome of the case will be addressed in Section III.
Appendix A. Diagrams and Figures Figure 1 (From ) Figure 2. (From ) Figure 3 (From ) Appendix B (relevant dates, pasted from Alexander 2008, Table 2, CRS-15) August 7, 2007 Preliminary injunction granted. NRDC v. Winter, 2007 WL 2481037 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2007) August 31, 2007 Injunction stayed. NRDC v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2007) November 13, 2007 Ninth Circuit dissolves stay. Remands to district court. NRDC v. Winter, 508 F.3d. 885 (9th Cir. 2007) January 3, 2008 District court enjoins Navy, but allows training if certain measures are taken. NRDC v. Winter, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (C.D. Cal. 2008) January 9, 2008 Navy seeks stay pending appeal. January 10, 2008 District court issues modified injunction. January 15, 2008 President exempts Navy from CZMA, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B). January 15, 2008 CEQ issues alternative arrangements under NEPA for Navy, pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 1506.11. January 16, 2008 Ninth Circuit remands to district court to consider Jan. 15 actions. NRDC v. Winter, 513 F. 3d 920 (9th Cir. 2008) February 4, 2008 District court finds that
Kalaskar, Menaka. “Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.” From SCOTUS Wiki. Available at . Last accessed April 19, 2009. Hansen, Victor and Lawrence Friedman. “‘Winter v. NRDC’: Limit the President’s Emergency Power.” The National Law Journal, 12-23-2008. Available at . Last visited April 19, 2009. Madin, Kate. “Supreme Court Weighs in on Whales and Sonar: Research offers best way to balance needs of marine mammals and the Navy.” Oceanus. March 27, 2009. Available at . Last visited April 20, 2009. Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Authored by the Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals. National Research Council, National Academies Press: 2003. Parsons, E.C.M., Sarah J. Dolman, Andrew J. Wright, Naomi A. Rose, W.C.G. Burns. “Navy sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 56 (2006): 1248-1257. Reynolds, Joel. Oceanus, letter to the editor, April 3, 2009. Available at . Last visited April 20, 2009. Slater, Dan. “Navy Wins, Whales Lose at High Court.” Wall Street Journal Law Blog. November 12, 2008. Available at . Last visited April 19, 2009. Stirling, David. “Security vs. species preservation”. Washington Times. Sunday, October 5, 2008. Available at . Last visited April 20, 2009. Stocker, Michael. “Ocean Bioacoustics, Human-Generated Noise and Ocean Policy”. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 10 (2007): 255-272. “The navy, Whales and the Court.” Editorial, The New York Times. Friday, October 10, 2008.