Brief for Natural Resources Defense Council as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondent, Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2010)

Article excerpt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
  I. THE COURTS OF EQUITY LONG HAVE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
     ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN THE FACE OF SIGNIFICANT THREATS
     a. The history of the common law fully supports the idea that
        courts may address situations that pose unreasonable harm of
        injury, and that they may issue injunctions in response to
        those threats
     b. The Restatement (Second) of Torts is fully in accord with
        these cases
     c. The tendency of courts to issue injunctions in the face of
        significant threats comports with sound risk analysis and
        the approaches that this Court and others have taken in
        analogous contexts
     d. Congress has recognized the importance of risk analysis in
        injunctive settings when it codified public nuisance
        principles in various environmental laws. Courts have done the
        same in applying those provisions
 II. WINTER DID NOT ALTER THE TRADITIONAL EQUITABLE
     REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INJUNCTION
III. THAT NEPA IMPOSES ONLY PROCEDURAL MANDATES SHOULD
     NOT UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF THE COURTS TO ENJOIN
     ACTIONS THAT WILL LIKELY LEAD TO IRREPARABLE INJURY

APPENDIX

Description of Amici Curiae

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

AlliedSignal, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich Co.,
   183 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 1999)
American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital
   Products Ltd.,
   780 F.2d 589 (7th Cir. 1986)
Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell,
   480 U.S. 531 (1987)
Ariz. Copper Co. v. Gillespie,
   230 U.S. 46 (1913)
Bragdon v. Abbott,
   524 U.S. 624 (1998)
Branch v. Smith,
   538 U.S. 254 (2003)
Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Invisible
   Empire, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia,
   972 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
   461 U.S. 95 (1983)
Clark v. Roemer,
   500 U.S. 646 (1991)
County of San Diego v. C. W. Carlstrom,
   196 Cal. App. 2d 485, 16 Cal. Rptr. 667 (1961)
Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries
   v. Glover,
   480 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2007)
Ferry v. City of Seattle,
   116 Wash. 648, 303 P. 40 (1922)
FoodCom Int'l v. Barry,
   328 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2003)
Found on Econ. Trends v. Weinberger,
   610 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1985)
Georgia v. Tenn. Copper Co.,
   206 U.S. 230 (1907)
Harris Stanley Coal & Land Co. v. Chesapeake &
   Ohio Railway Co.,
   154 F.2d 450 (6th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329
   U.S. 761 (1946)
Helling v. McKinney,
   509 U.S. 25 (1993)
Hirsh v. City of Atlanta,
   261 Ga. 22, 401 S.E.2d 530 (1991)
Interfaith Comb Org. v. Honeywell Int'l., Inc.,
   399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2005)
Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P Hood & Sons, Inc.,
   596 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1979)
London v. Bolt,
   5 Ves. Jun. 129, 31 Eng. Rep. 507 (Ch. 1799)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
   505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
   504 U.S. 555 (1992)
Mugler v. State of Kansas,
   123 U.S. 623 (1887)
N. Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry,
   886 F.2d 1339 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 495 U.S.
   1339 (1989)
New Jersey v. City of New York,
   283 U.S. 473 (1931)
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna,
   14 Cal.4th 1090, 929 P.2d 596,
   60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277 (1997)
R. v. Vantandillo,
   4 M. & S. 73, 105 Eng. Rep. 762 (K.B. 1815)
Reserve Mining Co. v. Environmental
   Protection Agency,
   514 F.2d 492 (8th Cir. 1975),
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,
   490 U.S. 332 (1989)
School Bd of Nassau County, Fla. y. Arline,
   480 U.S. 273 (1987)
Sierra Club v. Coleman,
   405 F. Supp. 53 (D.D.C. 1975)
Sierra Club v. US. Army Corps of Eng'rs,
   701 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1983)
Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen,
   444 U.S. 223 (1980)
Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill,
   437 U.S. 153 (1978)
Tyner v. People's Gas Co.,
   132 Ind. 408, 31 N.E. 61 (1892)
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.,
   159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)
United States v. …