## Facts

- The U.S. Forest Service approved seven timber sale projects in the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests in Georgia, covering about 2,103 acres.
- For each project, the Forest Service prepared an environmental assessment through an interdisciplinary process that included public input and concluded no significant environmental impact.
- Environmental organizations sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Water Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
- The plaintiffs alleged that timber cutting during nesting season would kill thousands of neotropical migratory birds.
- The district court entered a preliminary injunction stopping timber cutting and road building across all seven projects, relying substantially on its conclusion that the projects violated the MBTA.
- The Forest Service and timber contractors appealed the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the MBTA’s prohibition on taking or killing migratory birds applies to federal agencies, such that the Forest Service’s timber management activities can violate the MBTA.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction halting timber cutting and road building based principally on the MBTA theory.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held that the MBTA’s criminal prohibitions do not extend to the federal government or its agencies acting in a land-management capacity absent a clear statement from Congress.
- Because the plaintiffs could not show a substantial likelihood of success on the MBTA claim, the injunction—premised heavily on that claim—was an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory language imposing criminal liability on “any person, association, partnership, or corporation” does not, without clear congressional direction, include the United States or its agencies.
- Courts will not infer that Congress subjected federal agencies to criminal sanctions in the absence of unequivocal statutory text.
- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must clearly establish, at minimum, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and legal error on the controlling merits theory warrants reversal as an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit reversed an order halting seven national-forest timber projects, concluding that the MBTA’s criminal “take” provisions do not apply to the Forest Service’s timber management activities and that the plaintiffs therefore failed to show the likelihood of success required for preliminary injunctive relief.


Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir. 1997)