Waters off the coast of California have been used by the Navy for exercise and simulation purposes for over 40 years, until recently, when environmentalist groups got lower federal courts in the state to limit or even eliminate the use of sonars in some areas. However, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the marine wildlife was affected, as the groups said. Therefore, it lifted the ban and allowed the Navy to return to its usual routines.
 

The Bush administration said yesterday that, during more than 40 years of strategic exercises, no evidence of harm done to the animals was presented. And while other judges considered the facts brought forth by the environmentalists solid, the Justices at the Supreme Court had a different opinion on the matter.
 

They said that lower courts abused their discretion and illegally ordered the fleet to limit or shut down its sonar use completely. The Justices didn't deal with the claims of the groups directly, they simply analyzed the behavior of their lower counterparts. Chief Justice John Roberts, the leader of the majority opinion in the Court, said that the public interest was "strongly in favor of the Navy."
 

He also said that the records retrieved from the lower courts contained no substantial evidence that the marine wildlife, especially whales, were affected by the noise emitted by sonars. The dangers of operating the Navy would be endangering an unknown number of mammals, however, "In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet," he added.
 

"This likely harm (...) cannot be lightly dismissed, even in the face of an alleged risk to the effectiveness of the Navy's 14 training exercises," argued Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of the opposition to the decision, adding that the Navy's own reports showed that its activities would most likely cause extensive and irreparable damages to the wildlife.