Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
456 U.S. 305 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) does not require a district court to automatically issue an injunction for every statutory violation. Instead, federal courts retain their traditional equitable discretion to balance the competing interests and fashion appropriate relief to ensure compliance.
Facts:
- For many years, the U.S. Navy used Vieques Island, off the coast of Puerto Rico, for weapons training exercises for its Atlantic Fleet.
- During these training exercises, ordnance was discharged into the surrounding navigable waters, both accidentally and intentionally.
- The Navy conducted these operations and discharged pollutants without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
- The Governor of Puerto Rico, Carlos Romero-Barcelo, and residents of the island became concerned about the Navy's activities.
- A court later found that the Navy's discharges of ordnance had not caused any appreciable harm to the quality of the surrounding water.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Romero-Barcelo, Governor of Puerto Rico, and others sued the Secretary of Defense in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, seeking to enjoin the Navy's operations.
- The District Court found the Navy had violated the FWPCA but declined to issue an injunction, instead ordering the Navy to apply for a permit.
- Romero-Barcelo, as appellee, appealed the denial of the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, finding that an injunction was mandatory, vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to enjoin the Navy's operations until it obtained a permit.
- The Navy, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Water Pollution Control Act require a district court to immediately enjoin all discharges of pollutants that violate the Act's permit requirements, thereby removing the court's traditional equitable discretion to fashion other remedies?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) does not strip federal courts of their traditional equitable discretion to tailor relief for statutory violations. An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that does not issue as a matter of course. Unless Congress provides a clear and valid legislative command to the contrary, courts retain their authority to balance the equities, consider the public interest, and fashion a remedy that will secure compliance with the Act without causing undue harm. The FWPCA's purpose is to restore the integrity of the nation's waters, not merely to uphold the permit process for its own sake. Since the Navy's violation was not causing appreciable harm and an injunction would have grave consequences for national security, the district court acted within its discretion by ordering the Navy to seek a permit rather than immediately halting its operations. This situation is distinct from TVA v. Hill, where the Endangered Species Act contained a 'flat ban' and an injunction was the only means to prevent the irreversible harm of extinction.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, in effect, the district court's discretion was so narrowly circumscribed by the FWPCA that it should have issued an injunction. The FWPCA, like the statute in TVA v. Hill, contains a 'flat ban' against discharging pollutants without a permit. The majority grants an open-ended license for judges to create 'gaping holes' in a comprehensive statutory scheme by substituting their own ad hoc judgments for the clear mandate of Congress. The district court's considerations—that the pollution was not harming the water and that national security was at stake—are matters expressly delegated by Congress to the EPA (on harm) and the President (on national security exemptions), not the judiciary. By refusing to enjoin an ongoing, deliberate violation of federal law, the Court allows a 'judicial permit' that undermines the entire regulatory framework Congress established.
Concurring - Justice Powell
No. The majority correctly concludes that courts retain equitable discretion under the FWPCA. The District Court's decision not to issue an immediate injunction was a reasonable exercise of that discretion, considering the lack of environmental harm and the vital importance of the military training. The Court should have simply held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its judgment, rather than remanding for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that federal courts retain their inherent equitable discretion when enforcing statutes unless Congress explicitly strips it away. It sets a high bar for interpreting a statute as mandating automatic injunctive relief. The decision distinguishes between statutes with absolute prohibitions where an injunction is the only possible remedy (like the Endangered Species Act in TVA v. Hill) and complex regulatory schemes like the FWPCA, which provide for permits and other administrative remedies. This ruling gives lower courts significant flexibility to balance environmental compliance with other major public interests, such as national security or economic hardship, particularly when a violation causes no immediate or irreparable harm.
Unlock the full brief for Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo