Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society
United States Supreme Court
478 U.S. 221 (1986)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) set limits on the number of whales that a country could harvest in a given year. The IWC declared a five-year moratorium on whaling effective in 1985. Japan filed timely objections for the purpose of opting out of the moratorium. In response, the executive branch of the United States government entered an agreement with Japan—without Senate advice and consent—by which Japan was permitted to violate IWC quotas but stop commercial whaling in 1988. The American Cetacean Society (plaintiff) and other parties sought a declaratory judgment that US Secretary of Commerce Malcom Baldridge (the commerce secretary) (defendant) had violated the Pelly and Packwood Amendments, which required the commerce secretary to monitor and investigate IWC violations by foreign nations and certify conduct that diminished the effectiveness of the IWC. A certification would result in a reduction in the offending nation’s allocation within the US fishery conservation zone. The Japan Whaling Association and the Japan Fishing Association were intervenors in the suit. The federal district court ordered the commerce secretary to certify that Japan was in violation of the IWC, and the federal court of appeals affirmed. The commerce secretary appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, 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.