Supreme Court Refuses Checks on Border Fence

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the Bush administration on Monday in two cases involving national security and worries about the environment. One controversy centers on the Navy’s use of sonar off the Southern California coast, while the other concerns construction of a fence along the border between the United States and Mexico.

In the sonar case, the justices said they would review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which on Feb. 27 upheld most of a lower court ruling that banned high-powered sonar within 12 miles of the coast. Environmental groups had sued to block the use of the sonar because they feared harm to whales and dolphins.

The Bush administration has argued that the sonar training exercises, used to practice tracking of hostile submarines, are “essential to national security,” that environmentalists are exaggerating the possible harm to marine life and that, in any event, national security should take precedence over the welfare of water creatures.

“This is an issue that is essential to national security, and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to review this case,” Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman, told The Associated Press. The Bush administration had asked the court to take the case.

The Natural Resources Defense Council had sued the Navy because Southern California’s coastal waters are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, including nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Marine biologists have said the sonar in question generates extreme pressure that can disorient and injure the creatures, disrupting their feeding and mating schedules and causing injuries. The Navy has insisted that it takes steps adequate to minimize the effects of sonic wakes.

In the border dispute, the Supreme Court refused to put brakes on the Bush administration’s full-speed-ahead approach to construction of a fence along the border between the United States and Mexico.

Without comment, the justices declined a plea by environmental groups to put checks on the administration’s power to bypass environmental reviews in building sections of the 700-mile fence. The Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, has used the environmental-waiver authority, which was granted by Congress, several times.

Under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the Homeland Security Department was authorized by Congress to build up to 700 miles of fence along the 2,000-mile Southwest border, where most illegal immigrants coming into the United States cross over.

Environmental groups have expressed concerns, through lawsuits and public hearings, about the damage that the fencing could cause to wildlife. Property owners, particularly along the Rio Grande, have also complained about what they see as federal intrusion on their land and access to the river.

A recent statement by Mr. Chertoff summed up his general stance: “Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation.” The secretary has said his department must bypass environmental regulations if it is to meet the goal set by Congress of completing at least 670 miles of fence by the end of 2008.

Opposition to the fence project intensified in April, when Mr. Chertoff issued two waivers covering 470 miles of the border from California to Texas as well as a separate 22-mile stretch in Hidalgo County, Tex., where the department plans to build fencing up to 18 feet high into a flood-control levee in a wildlife refuge.

The case that the Supreme Court refused to take up on Monday focused on a two-mile stretch of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The stretch has since been built.

“I am extremely disappointed in the court’s decision,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, told the A.P. on Monday. Mr. Thompson, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, and 13 other House Democrats had announced their support for challenges to Mr. Chertoff’s waiver authority, which were led by the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife.

Mr. Thompson told the news service on Monday that he believes use of the waiver authority will only keep the Homeland Security Department from addressing “the real issue: their lack of a comprehensive border security plan.”

Comment

 
---