Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Case Brief

Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

725 F.3d 940

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, the Ninth Circuit held that environmental motives do not excuse violent vigilante conduct at sea: alleged ship-ramming, propeller-fouling, and dangerous projectile attacks could constitute piracy and warranted preliminary injunctive relief.

Background

The Institute of Cetacean Research and related Japanese whaling entities and individuals conducted whale research in the Southern Ocean under a Japanese scientific permit issued pursuant to Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its founder, Paul Watson, sought to stop those operations through direct actions at sea, including ramming vessels, deploying metal-reinforced ropes to foul propellers and rudders, throwing acid-filled containers, launching hooked smoke bombs and flares, and using high-powered lasers.

The whalers sued Sea Shepherd under the Alien Tort Statute, alleging piracy and violations of international maritime agreements. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the piracy claims, denied a preliminary injunction, and relied in part on an Australian judgment purporting to prohibit whaling in Antarctic waters claimed by Australia. The Ninth Circuit reversed, directed that preliminary relief remain in force, and ordered reassignment to a different district judge on remand.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Ninth Circuit could review the district court's dismissal of the piracy claims in this interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.

Holding

Yes. The piracy dismissal was reviewable because its reasoning was inextricably intertwined with the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.

Reasoning

The court had express appellate jurisdiction over the order denying a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). Although the dismissal of the piracy claims was not itself a final judgment, the district court's reasons for dismissing those claims were inseparable from its conclusion that the whalers lacked a likelihood of success on the merits. The court could therefore review both rulings together.

Issue #2

Whether Sea Shepherd's alleged conduct stated a claim for piracy under customary international law as reflected in UNCLOS and the High Seas Convention.

Holding

Yes. The alleged acts were violent acts committed for private ends against another ship or persons or property aboard it, and thus fell within the international-law definition of piracy.

Reasoning

UNCLOS and the High Seas Convention define piracy to include illegal acts of violence, detention, or depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship and directed on the high seas against another ship or persons or property aboard it. The Ninth Circuit treated those nearly identical treaty provisions as supplying the relevant definition of piracy under the law of nations.

reasoning_placeholder