Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Protecting Sensitive Marine Mammals From Navy Sonar In Training Exercises

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - In its first decision of the term, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the U.S. Navy can conduct its sonar training exercises off California's southern coast without restrictions designed to protect marine mammals such as whales and dolphins.

The court voted 5-4 to overturn protections ordered by a lower court, saying that the Navy needs to be able to use its sonar to conduct training to respond to possible threats from enemy submarines.

Navy attorneys successfully argued that there was little evidence of harm to marine life from 40 years of ongoing testing in the area using sonar.

However, not much is known about marine life in the nation's oceans. The first-ever marine census is now underway.

Environmental groups had argued that the intense sound waves from sonar can cause harm to 37 species of marine mammals and even kill the creatures. They argued that the sonar sound waves can interfere with the ability of the mammal's ability to navigate and communicate.

Endangered blue whales were among the marine mammals the groups said were adversely affected by sonar sound waves.

Justices did not decide the case on its merits, instead ruling that the federal courts had abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to turn off its sonar in some instances while not using it in others.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas explained the rational behind the decision.

"The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals," Roberts wrote. "In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet."

Those voting against allowing the Navy to use sonar without regard to the safety of marine mammals were Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, who agreed with part of the decision and disagreed with part, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, who disagreed with the entire ruling.