Judge permits new legal challenge to Navy Growler noise analysis
A federal judge in Washington state has authorized an environmental group to file a supplemental complaint against the Navy's December 2025 environmental assessment, keeping a seven-year lawsuit over jet operations active.
By Vanessa Lopez ·
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones ruled on November 3 that Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve and Paula Spina may file a supplemental complaint in the existing lawsuit against the Navy. The decision allows the challengers to test the Department of the Navy’s latest environmental analysis for EA-18G Growler jets at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. The ruling rejects the government’s position that the case should be closed following a final judgment.
The legal dispute began in 2019 when the environmental group and the state Attorney General’s Office challenged the Navy’s review of expanded jet operations. The cases were consolidated, and in 2022, Judge Jones found that the Navy violated the National Environmental Policy Act in four specific areas. The court ordered the Navy to correct deficiencies related to greenhouse gas calculations, classroom learning impacts, bird species effects, and the potential relocation of operations to California. The Navy was permitted to continue expanded Growler flights while it prepared the required corrections.
The original environmental impact statement preceded the Navy’s decision to add 36 Growlers to NAS Whidbey and quadruple touch-and-go training at Outlying Landing Field Coupeville. The Navy released its amended analysis in December 2025, claiming to address the four deficiencies identified by the court. In January, the environmental group filed a motion asking for permission to challenge this revised document. The Navy opposed the request in March, arguing that the group had failed to preserve certain claims and that the litigation should not expand after a final judgment.
Judge Jones rejected those procedural arguments, finding that the court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its earlier orders. The judge determined that the group had not waived its claims and that procedural rules did not require them to attach a proposed complaint at the motion stage. However, the judge agreed with the Navy that the lawsuit should not expand beyond the scope of the previous ruling. The supplemental complaint is limited to whether the Navy corrected the four specific deficiencies identified in 2022. New parties and previously dismissed claims are prohibited.
The amended analysis acknowledges that noise from Growler operations can affect childhood learning at local schools. The document states that effects on test scores would be partially mitigated by reducing flight operations during academic testing periods. According to the analysis, Crescent Harbor Elementary School would experience the greatest noise exposure, potentially resulting in a one-month delay in reading comprehension. Students at several schools, including Coupeville Elementary School, could face negative impacts on long-term memory, reading comprehension, and math test scores.
The environmental group argues that the analysis still does not adequately address the effects of aircraft noise on classroom learning, particularly at Coupeville High School and Coupeville Middle School. The group also challenges the Navy’s conclusions regarding greenhouse gas emissions, impacts on birds, and the possibility of relocating operations to Naval Air Facility El Centro in California. The Navy concluded that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions would be nominal and that aircraft training would unlikely significantly affect state-listed bird species.
COER disputes the Navy’s findings on common loons and tufted puffins, pointing to concerns raised by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The group also argues that the Navy failed to adequately evaluate greenhouse gas emissions in relation to state and county emissions-reduction goals. The Navy determined that relocating Growler operations to El Centro would reduce operational effectiveness, cost too much, and expose more people to aircraft noise. The group maintains that this alternative was not adequately considered.
The group has also criticized the Navy for issuing an amended analysis without preparing a new environmental impact statement or a record of decision. The ruling does not determine whether the Navy’s amended environmental analysis complies with federal law. It only allows the legal challenge to proceed within the existing case.
