Conservation Council for Hawaii v. National Marine Fisheries Service
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
97 F. Supp. 3d 1210 (2015)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
The United States Navy proposed to conduct training off the coasts of Hawaii and Southern California. The area where training would occur was inhabited by 39 species of marine animals, eight of which were classified as endangered and one of which was threatened. The Navy studied the impact of its activities in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (defendant) and sought for an authorization from the NMFS to allow the navy to take a certain number of marine animals incidental to its training activities. The authorization was required to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (the MMPA). Multiple environmental groups (plaintiffs) filed suit against the federal government (defendant). The NMFS issued a final decision that the Navy’s proposed activities would have a negligible impact on all marine mammal species and authorized the Navy’s request. The Conservation Council for Hawaii (the council) (plaintiff) filed suit and sought judicial review of the administrative decisions by the NMFS, which it claimed violated the MMPA. The NMFS asserted that it complied with all federal requirements, including the MMPA, and moved for summary judgment. The council also moved for summary judgment in its favor.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mollway, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.