One notable group in support of the petitioners is the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a California-based legal organization established to support pro-business causes. According to vice president David Stirling, presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn the Winter status as a citing various examples in his support. (Stirling 2008) A ESA’s ‘super statute’, personal communication with Steven Gieseler, the PLF lawyer who wrote the Amicus Brief in support of the petitioners, confirms the to shift power away from organization’s intent environmental statutes when he writes that main reason for [my satisfaction with the “the is that such tests had been off limits in environmental cases in recent opinion’s balancing test] April 16, 2009) history.” (personal correspondence, C. The Interests of Environmental Protection: the Respondents. Just as the supporters fielded a range of motives, the respondents were concerned about issues petitioners’ ranging from species protection to limits on presidential power. Whereas the petitioners frame the issue as a case of Navy knows best and the environmentalists are saying they “the can’t the environmentalist respondents frame the issue as follows: national security protect us”, “both and marine mammals can thrive as long as the Navy follows these mitigation I will measures.” address the views and concerns of two different kinds of petitioners: the marine mammal protection community, and the separation of powers community. The most obvious stakeholders are the respondents themselves, the NRDC and its the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, and the Ocean Futures Society and its founding president, Jean-Michel Cousteau. The two most prominent legal figures in the respondents’ camp are Joel Reynolds, NRDC senior attorney, and Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel and oral argument presenter. Their views on the outcome of the case will be addressed in Section III.
One notable group in support of the petitioners is the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a California-based legal organization established to support pro-business causes. According to vice president David Stirling, Winter presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn the ESA’s status as a ‘super statute’, citing various examples in his support. (Stirling 2008) A personal communication with Steven Gieseler, the PLF lawyer who wrote the Amicus Brief in support of the petitioners, confirms the organization’s intent to shift power away from environmental statutes when he writes that “the main reason for [my satisfaction with the opinion’s balancing test] is that such tests had been off limits in environmental cases in recent history.” (personal correspondence, April 16, 2009) C. The Interests of Environmental Protection: the Respondents. Just as the petitioners’ supporters fielded a range of motives, the respondents were concerned about issues ranging from species protection to limits on presidential power. Whereas the petitioners frame the issue as a case of “the Navy knows best and the environmentalists are saying they can’t protect us”, the environmentalist respondents frame the issue as follows: “both national security and marine mammals can thrive as long as the Navy follows these mitigation measures.” I will address the views and concerns of two different kinds of petitioners: the marine mammal protection community, and the separation of powers community. The most obvious stakeholders are the respondents themselves, the NRDC and its the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, and the Ocean Futures Society and its founding president, Jean-Michel Cousteau. The two most prominent legal figures in the respondents’ camp are Joel Reynolds, NRDC senior attorney, and Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel and oral argument presenter. Their views on the outcome of the case will be addressed in Section III.