## Facts

- Commercial tuna vessels used purse-seine nets that often encircled porpoises swimming with tuna, a practice historically associated with marine mammal deaths.
- Federal regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act required permit holders to allow government observers aboard to conduct research and observe operations, including collecting information usable in enforcement proceedings.
- The agency adopted a policy of assigning both female and male observers, including for compliance with federal nondiscrimination obligations.
- Vessel owners and some crew objected to assignment of female observers, citing cramped and shared sleeping and bathroom facilities and asserting resulting privacy intrusions.
- Plaintiffs also asserted that female observers faced heightened risk of sexual harassment or assault and that the vessel operators faced potential liability and operational disruption.
- The government presented evidence that women had served as observers with few incidents and that vessels could employ practical accommodations to reduce privacy concerns.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctions without a sufficient showing of likely, imminent irreparable harm.
2. Whether speculative privacy, safety, and economic concerns can satisfy the irreparable-harm requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
3. Whether the district court failed to properly weigh the public interest in enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act and complying with federal nondiscrimination law.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the orders granting preliminary injunctions.
- The court held the injunctions were not supported by a showing of irreparable harm or a proper balance of hardships.
- The court concluded the asserted injuries were largely conjectural and not shown to be actual, imminent, or irreparable.
- The court found the district court gave insufficient weight to public interests in effective federal enforcement and nondiscriminatory administration of observer assignments.
- The reversal permitted the government to assign female observers to the vessels while the litigation continued.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring, at minimum, a showing of likely and imminent irreparable injury (or serious merits questions plus a balance of hardships tipping sharply toward the movant).
- Speculative or conjectural injury does not constitute irreparable harm sufficient to justify preliminary injunctive relief.
- In evaluating equitable relief against government action, courts must weigh the public interest, including the government’s ability to carry out statutory and regulatory duties.
- Broad preliminary injunctions are disfavored where less restrictive measures could address asserted harms and where the factual record is undeveloped.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the boat owners and crew did not establish imminent, non-speculative irreparable harm from the assignment of female observers and that the district court improperly weighed hardships and public interests, requiring reversal of the preliminary injunctions that barred such assignments.


Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988)