## Facts

- The U.S. Navy built ammunition and weapons storage facilities in Hawaii with magazines capable of storing nuclear weapons.
- The Navy prepared an environmental assessment and found no significant environmental impact, so it did not prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).
- Under Navy secrecy rules and related federal law, the Navy could neither confirm nor deny whether nuclear weapons were stored at the facilities.
- A citizen group sued to stop construction unless the Navy prepared an EIS available to the public under NEPA.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA requires the Navy to prepare and publicly release a “hypothetical” EIS for a facility capable of storing nuclear weapons when relevant information is classified and exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
2. Whether a court may order an agency to create an EIS-like document that depends on assumptions about facts the agency is legally forbidden to confirm or deny.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- NEPA did not require preparation or public release of a “hypothetical” EIS designed to avoid FOIA limits on disclosure of classified information.
- Because FOIA Exemption 1 would permit withholding classified national-security material that an actual EIS might contain, NEPA could not be used to compel creation of an alternative document not authorized by the statute.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be made available to the public is expressly limited by FOIA; disclosure obligations for EIS materials are governed by FOIA’s exemptions.
- FOIA Exemption 1 permits nondisclosure of properly classified national-security information; NEPA does not override that protection.
- Courts may not require agencies to produce a “hypothetical” EIS (or similar substitute) that would not otherwise exist and that functions only to bypass FOIA’s exemption scheme.
- NEPA’s command to comply “to the fullest extent possible” does not displace independent legal constraints, including statutes and valid regulations requiring secrecy in matters of national security.

## Conclusion

The Court held that NEPA’s public-disclosure component operates subject to FOIA, and it rejected a judicially created requirement that the Navy prepare a public “hypothetical” EIS where the relevant information would be classified and exempt from disclosure under FOIA.


Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Haw., 454 U.S. 139 (1981)