Water Keeper Alliance v. United States Department of Defense

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the presumption in favor protected species cannot “blindly compel” an outcome in favor of endangered species where the sought-after injunction would implicate national security
• concluding that a similar requirement for a suit under the Endangered Species Act requires notice of 60 days in order to provide “agencies with an opportunity to resolve the dispute and take any necessary corrective measures before a resort to the courts”
• differentiating Strahan on the grounds that \the harm asserted by the navy implicates national security and therefore deserves greater weight than the economic harm at issue in Strahan\
• applying a four-part standard under the ESA because of the case’s “national security”
• stating that “[i]n the absence of a more concrete showing of probable deaths during the interim period and of how these deaths may impact the species, the district court’s conclusion that Water Keeper has failed to show potential for irreparable harm was not an abuse of discretion”
• upholding a district court’s denial of a permanent injunction where the district court found that regulations promulgated by the state of Maine did not pose a danger to the species

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).