## Facts

- Japanese research entities and individuals conducted whale hunts in the Southern Ocean under permits issued by Japan pursuant to an international whaling convention.
- Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its founder opposed the hunts and used direct-action tactics at sea to interfere with the whaling vessels.
- Alleged conduct included ramming ships, throwing projectiles containing acid or other harmful substances, dragging ropes to foul propellers and rudders, launching smoke devices and flares, and using high-powered lasers.
- The interference allegedly endangered vessel operation and crew safety in hazardous Antarctic waters and impeded freedom of navigation on the high seas.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of international maritime law, including piracy and treaty-based navigation-safety norms.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed certain piracy-related claims, citing, among other things, lack of piracy, comity concerns tied to foreign proceedings, and unclean hands.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Sea Shepherd’s alleged conduct could constitute piracy under international law actionable under the ATS, including whether “private ends” requires a pecuniary motive and whether “violence” can be directed at property.
2. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction to restrain dangerous interference with maritime navigation.
3. Whether international comity supported deference to foreign judgments premised on asserted Antarctic sovereignty not recognized by the United States.
4. Whether unclean hands barred injunctive relief based on allegations that plaintiffs’ whaling was unlawful.
5. Whether reassignment to a different district judge was warranted on remand.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to issue injunctive relief restricting Sea Shepherd’s dangerous tactics in the Southern Ocean.
- The court reversed the dismissal of piracy claims, holding plaintiffs stated a viable piracy claim under the international law definition reflected in UNCLOS and related sources.
- The court held “private ends” is not limited to financial gain and can include ideologically motivated violence by non-state actors.
- The court held “violence” for piracy includes malicious acts against property, not only attacks on persons.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by relying on comity tied to foreign decisions premised on Antarctic sovereignty claims not recognized by the United States.
- The court rejected unclean-hands reasoning as a bar to relief aimed at protecting maritime safety and navigation.
- The court remanded with instructions to reassign the case to a different district judge; one judge agreed on the merits but dissented as to reassignment.

## Legal Principles

- Under the international law definition of piracy, “private ends” is not confined to pecuniary motives; violent, non-state conduct pursued for ideological objectives may qualify.
- “Illegal acts of violence” in the piracy definition can include malicious acts against inanimate objects and property when directed against another ship on the high seas.
- For preliminary injunctive relief, endangerment of vessels and crews and interference with safe navigation can establish likelihood of irreparable harm and support relief where plaintiffs show a likelihood of success under applicable international maritime norms.
- International comity is inappropriate when predicated on foreign assertions of sovereignty that the United States does not recognize.
- Alleged wrongdoing by a plaintiff does not necessarily bar equitable relief where the requested injunction targets independently unlawful conduct threatening navigation safety.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit treated violent maritime interference with whaling ships as potentially actionable piracy under international law and ordered preliminary injunctive relief to protect safety and freedom of navigation, rejecting comity and unclean-hands rationales that had blocked relief in the district court.


Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013)