1. The People of Enewetak et al.

1. Theodore R. Mitchell, Saipan, Mariana Islands
2. Edward C. King, Saipan, Mariana Islands
3. James E. Duggan, Saipan, Mariana Islands
4. Dennis F. Olsen, Micronesian Legal Services Corp., Majuro, Marshall Islands
5. Hamlet J. Barry, III, Micronesian legal Services Corp., Majuro, Marshall Islands
6. Boyce R. Brown, Jr., Mattoch Edmunds Kemper & Brown, Honolulu, HI

1. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense
2. Robert C. Seamens, Secretary of the Air Force
3. Philip N. Wittaker, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
4. Noel Gayler, Commander in chief of the United States Military Forces in the Pacific Ocean
5. Carol H. Dunn, Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency

1. Jon T. Miho, Asst. U.S. Atty., District of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, Hawai‘i

U.S. District Court, D. Hawai‘i

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), §§ 2 et seq., 101(b), 102(1), 102(2)(E), 202, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., 4331(b), 4332(1), 4332(2)(E), 4341

1. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the defendants to prevent the defendants from continuing with their Pacific Cratering Experiments (“PACE”) on Enewetak Atoll. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated NEPA by not submitting a sufficient Draft Environmental Statement (“DES”). Before the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the defendants conceded that the DES submitted on April 18, 1972 (“April 18th DES”) for the PACE was insufficient. The defendants agreed to submit a new DES after the trial on the merits. The defendants wanted to exclude from the scope of the preliminary injunction their core drilling and seismic studies on the atoll.
   
2. Enewetak is a Pacific Atoll overseen by the United States under a “Trust Agreement” with the United Nations. The plaintiffs’ ancestors had resided in Enewetak uninterrupted until 1947. In 1947, the United States displaced the people of Enewetak to Ujelang Atoll to use Enewetak as a nuclear test site. From 1947 to 1958, more than thirty nuclear devices had been tested on the Enewetak Atoll.
   
3. In 1972, the plaintiffs were able to visit and make aerial surveys of Enewetak. Additionally, the plaintiffs were given a copy of the April 18th DES. Based on this document and the observations during the visit, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants.
   
4. PACE was a part of a larger program to determine the vulnerability of the United States’ strategic defense against nuclear attacks. Specifically, PACE was designed to determine the “cratering” effect of nuclear blasts by simulating such blasts with high explosives. The core drilling activities and seismic studies are used to determine the makeup of the subsoil and strata of Enewetak and the nuclear craters. The court found that the main purpose for these activities was to further the PACE project. The court found that the core drilling did not cause significant environmental damage because the holes filled up within a short amount of time. The seismic studies are done in conjunction with the core drilling. The seismic studies consists of sending sound waves in holes and detecting the velocity of the sound waves passing through the matter.
   
5. The court held that NEPA is applicable to Trust Territories. Although there is no reference to the Trust Territory, the court found that the scope of NEPA is extraordinarily broad. Congress had made a conscious effort to avoid the use of restrictive language in NEPA. Additionally, although the people of Trust Territories are not U.S. citizens and reside outside of the U.S., they are still subject to the authority of the United States. The people of the Trust Territory do not have an independent government that could protect them from the United States’ actions adverse to the environment. Therefore, the defendants must comply with NEPA in regards to the PACE project on Enewetak.
   
6. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit against the defendants. Enewetak is their ancestral homeland and are crucially affected by the defendants’ actions.
   
7. The court held that the scope of the preliminary injunction included the core drilling and seismic studies. The core drilling and seismic studies were to further the PACE project and not a separate project of general value. Additionally, the court found that there was a probability that the core drilling and seismic studies would significantly impact the Enewetak ecology. Even if the core drilling and seismic studies had no environmental impact, under NEPA, such activities must still be suspended during the environmental evaluation process. Otherwise, the Environmental Statement would function as a progress of the activity in question. Finally, the defendants would not suffer an irreparable injury if the core drilling and seismic studies were enjoined.
   
8. The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.