Okinawa Dugong v. Gates
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
543 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (2008)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
The Okinawa dugong (plaintiff), a critically endangered marine mammal, was protected under Japan’s Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties, which was Japan’s equivalent to the United States’ National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The Department of Defense (DOD) (defendant) approved a plan to construct the Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF), a military air station, in Henoko Bay, Okinawa. Henoko Bay was a habitat and feeding ground for dugongs, and the proposed FRF construction would destroy the sea-grass beds the dugongs fed on and would potentially expose the dugongs to toxins, boat strikes, and marine noise pollution. The DOD did not conduct studies to determine whether Henoko Bay was a critical dugong habitat before approving the FRF construction plan. Acting on behalf of the dugong, several environmental associations, along with three individual Japanese citizens (collectively, the dugong), sued the DOD for violating the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the DOD had failed to take into account the impact of the approved FRF construction on the dugong. The DOD countered, arguing that the impact on the dugong would be carefully evaluated and that mitigation plans would be created during the Japanese government’s upcoming three-year environmental-impact review process.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Patel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
