International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Baldrige

No. 84-5393 (D.C. Cir. June 30, 1984)

The court refuses to grant appellants' emergency motion to enjoin a seal hunt on the Pribiolof Islands holding that appellants have failed to meet the extraordinarily high burden needed to stay an executive act involving foreign affairs. In fact, appellants have failed to meet even the ordinary burden of proof of likelihood of success on the merits. For the same reason, the court also denies appellants' alternative motion for summary reversal.

[The opinion of the district court appears at 14 ELR 20702.]

Counsel are listed at 14 ELR 20702.

Before Tamm, Edwards^* and Starr, JJ.

[14 ELR 20731]

Per curiam:

Order

Upon consideration of appellants' emergency motion for entry of an injunction pending appeal or, in the alternative for summary [14 ELR 20732] reversal, appellants' request for oral hearing, and appellees' and intervenor-appellee Tanagdusix Corporation's oppositions, it is

ORDERED, by the Court, that the emergency motion for injunctive relief is denied. Where, as here, there is a request for an order directing action by the Secretary of Commerce in an area so imbued with our nation's foreign affairs that it constitutes an intrusion "into the core concerns of the executive branch, a court is 'quite wrong in routinely applying to this case the traditional standards governing more orthodox "stays."'" Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950, 954 [8 ELR 20160] (D.C. Cir. 1977) (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 83-84 (1974)). Thus, we adopt the standard enunciated by this Court when it was faced with analogous facts in similarly exigent circumstances:

This country's interests in regard to foreign affairs and international agreements may depend on the symbolic significance to other countries of various stances and on what is practical with regard to diplomatic interaction and negotiation. Courts are not in a position to exercise a judgment that is fully sensitive to these matters. Accordingly, while we do not determine the justiciability of a request for relief of this kind, we think it clear that if such a request is justiciable, the party seeking this kind of relief would have to make an extraordinarily strong showing to succeed.

Adams v. Vance, supra, 570 F.2d at 955. Appellants here have not made such a showing.

Even if we were to accept appellants' argument that a less rigorous standard applies, they still have failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam). It is

FURTHER ORDERED by the Court, that appellants' alternative motion for summary reversal be denied because a fortiori they have failed to carry their "heavy burden of demonstrating . . . that the merits of [their] claim so clearly warrant relief as to justify expedited action." United States v. Allen, 408 F.2d 1287, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (per curiam). Finally, it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the Court, that appellants' request for oral argument be denied as moot.

* Circuit Judge Edwards did not participate in this order.