Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, 725 F.3d 940

Cetacean Research, a Japanese cetacean research organization, holds a research permit under the Whaling Convention.
Sea Shepherd conducts aggressive, violent interference tactics at sea (ramming, prop fouling, acid, smoke flares, lasers) against Cetacean.
Cetacean sued Sea Shepherd under the Alien Tort Statute for piracy and related violations and sought a preliminary injunction; the district court denied injunction and dismissed piracy claims.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary review jurisdiction over the injunction denial and dismissed piracy claims as failing to meet standards, but the panel reversed on piracy and injunction, concluding reassignment may be appropriate.
Concurrently, a concurrence/dissent debated whether reassignment to a different district judge was warranted, with the majority remanding; one judge would not remand but would not disturb the reasoning on merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sea Shepherd’s actions constitute piracy under customary international law	Cetacean argues acts are piracy under UNCLOS art. 101	Sea Shepherd contends acts are not piracy because ends are private/ideological	Yes; piracy claims survive dismissal and merit analysis
Whether Cetacean is likely to succeed on a preliminary injunction	Cetacean shows likelihood of success on SUA/UNCLOS/ COLREGS	Sea Shepherd challenges likelihood and imminence of harm	Yes; injunction should be issued pending further proceedings
Whether the SUA, UNCLOS, and COLREGS establish irreparable harm and public interest support	Harassment endangers navigation and ecosystem; public interest favors injunctive relief	No irreparable harm proven; other interests weigh against relief	Injunction supported; public and international interest favor restraining piracy
Whether the case should be reassigned to another district judge on remand	Reassignment not required; the panel’s reasoning suffices	Reassignment appropriate to preserve appearance of justice	Reassignment is appropriate per majority; majority remands; one concurrence would not remand

United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir.2012) (defines piracy; uses UNCLOS framework)
Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. (2008)) (preliminary injunction standards; four-factor test)
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.2009) (abuse of discretion standard for injunctions; en banc discussion)
Quach, 302 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (remand/remedies; standards for reassignment)
Ellis v. U.S. Dist. Court (In re Ellis), 356 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.2004) (appearance of justice; en banc)
Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 235 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.2000) (remand considerations; preservation of fairness)
Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir.2009) (comity considerations; international judgments)
Republic Molding Corp. v. B.W. Photo Utils., 319 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1963) (unclean hands; equitable defense limits)
Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir.2008) (public interest balancing for regulatory actions)