Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePreliminary InjunctionsEquitable ReliefNEPApreliminary injunctionirreparable harmlikelihood standardbalance of equities

Facts

The Navy conducts integrated strike-group training exercises off southern California and considers MFA sonar mission-critical for antisubmarine warfare against difficult-to-detect diesel-electric submarines. After issuing a 293-page environmental assessment, the Navy concluded the scheduled exercises would not significantly affect the environment and did not prepare a full environmental impact statement. The district court nevertheless imposed several mitigation restrictions, and the Navy challenged two of them: a 2,200-yard shutdown requirement when marine mammals were spotted and a 6 dB power-down during significant surface ducting conditions. Senior Navy officials stated that those restrictions would impair realistic training and harm national defense interests.

Issue

Whether the preliminary injunction restricting the Navy's sonar training could stand where the lower courts applied a "possibility" of irreparable harm standard and where the balance of equities and public interest implicated military training and national defense. More specifically, whether plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief under the proper equitable standard.

Rule

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. A mere possibility of irreparable harm is insufficient because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may be awarded only upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A neighborhood association in Tacoma, Washington sues a federal logistics agency to halt a six-month emergency vehicle training program near a wildlife refuge, alleging the agency should have prepared a fuller environmental review. The district judge finds the association is likely to succeed on the procedural claim and that bird disruption is possible, but not clearly likely, before trial.

Under the governing standard for a preliminary injunction, which is the best ruling?

Explanation. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing of four elements, including that irreparable injury is likely absent relief. A mere possibility of harm is too lenient because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, not granted as of right. Thus, even if the plaintiff appears likely to succeed on a procedural environmental claim, the injunction should be denied if irreparable harm is only possible rather than likely. (Derived from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council (n.d.).)