Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States

693 F. Supp. 3d 1364, 2024 CIT 37
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedApril 1, 2024
Docket20-00112
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 693 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 3d 1364, 2024 CIT 37 (cit 2024).

Opinion

Slip Op. 24-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SEA SHEPHERD NEW ZEALAND and SEA SHEPHERD CONSERVATION SOCIETY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES; GINA M. RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as Secretary of Commerce; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; JANET COIT, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service; NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; JANET YELLEN, in her official Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; Court No. 20-00112 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Defendants,

and

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT,

Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION

[ In light of NOAA’s new comparability findings, Defendant-Intervenor’s Unopposed Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction is granted. The court intimates no view as to those new comparability findings. ]

Dated: April 1, 2024 Court No. 20-00112 Page 2

Lia Comerford, Earthrise Law Center at Lewis & Clark Law, of Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Stephen C. Tosini, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendants United States, Gina M. Raimondo, in her official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Commerce; Janet Coit, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator of her the National Marine Fisheries Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; Janet Yellen, in her official capacity as Secretary of Treasury United States Department of the Treasury; Alejandro Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and United States Department of Homeland Security. With him on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of counsel was Jason S. Forman, Office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of Silver Spring, MD.

Warren E. Connelly, Robert G. Gosselink and Kenneth N. Hammer of Trade Pacific PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor New Zealand Government.

Katzmann, Judge: The court returns once more to the case of the critically endangered

MƗui dolphin—one of the world’s smallest dolphins—that is endemic to New Zealand. See Sea

Shepherd N.Z. v. United States (“Sea Shepherd I”), 44 CIT __, 469 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (2020), ECF

No. 38; Sea Shepherd N.Z. v. United States (“Sea Shepherd II”), 46 CIT __, 606 F. Supp. 3d 1286

(2022), ECF No. 108; Sea Shepherd N.Z. v. United States (“Sea Shepherd III”), 47 CIT __, 611 F.

Supp. 3d 1406 (2023), ECF No. 131; Sea Shepherd N.Z. v. United States (“Sea Shepherd IV”), 47

CIT __, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (2023), ECF No. 136. Sea Shepherd New Zealand and Sea Shepherd

Conservation Society (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this lawsuit with the fundamental claim that as a result

of incidental capture—also referred to as “bycatch”—in gillnet and trawl fisheries within their

range, the MƗui dolphin population is declining such that a U.S. ban on importing certain fish and

fish products from New Zealand is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”).

See First Supp. Compl. ¶¶ 1–4, Nov. 24, 2020, ECF No. 46. On November 28, 2022, the court

entered a preliminary injunction ordering several United States agencies and officials

(“Defendants”) to “immediately ban the importation from New Zealand” of nine types of seafood

deriving from New Zealand’s West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set net fisheries, unless Court No. 20-00112 Page 3

affirmatively identified as having been caught with a gear type other than gillnets or trawls. Order

at 2, Nov. 28, 2022, ECF No. 109; see also Sea Shepherd II, 606 F. Supp. 3d at 1286. Defendant-

Intervenor New Zealand now moves to dissolve that preliminary injunction.

Creating with certain exceptions a “moratorium on the taking and importation of marine

mammals and marine mammal products,” the MMPA aims to protect marine mammals by setting

forth U.S. standards applicable both to domestic commercial fisheries and to foreign fisheries that

wish to export their products to the United States, like those in New Zealand. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a).

If such U.S. standards are not met, the MMPA calls for a mandatory ban. See id. § 1371(a)(2).

Administering that statute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA”)

Imports Regulation requires foreign harvesting nations to secure “comparability findings” for their

fisheries importing fish and fish products into the United States and establishes that any fish or

fish product harvested in a fishery for which a valid comparability finding is not in effect is in

excess of U.S. standards and thereby prohibited from import. See 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(h)(1)(i).

The November 28, 2022 preliminary injunction was premised on Plaintiffs’ challenge, as

pleaded in their First Supplemental Complaint, to NOAA’s decision on November 9, 2020, which

did not impose an import ban as requested by Plaintiffs’ supplemental petition and instead issued

positive comparability findings for New Zealand’s West Coast North Island inshore trawl and set

net fisheries. See First Suppl. Compl.; Implementation of Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act—Notification of Rejection of Petition and Issuance of

Comparability Findings, 85 Fed. Reg. 71297, 71298 (NOAA Nov. 9, 2020); see also Sea Shepherd

I, 469 F. Supp. 3d 1330; Sea Shepherd II, 606 F. Supp. 3d 1286; Sea Shepherd III, 611 F. Supp.

3d 1406; Sea Shepherd IV, 639 F. Supp. 3d 1367. On January 24, 2024, NOAA published notice

of its issuance of new positive comparability findings for New Zealand’s West Coast North Island Court No. 20-00112 Page 4

inshore trawl and set net fisheries, based on supplemental information provided by Plaintiffs and

New Zealand. See Implementation of Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act—Notification of Issuance of Comparability Findings, 89 Fed. Reg. 4595,

4596 (NOAA Jan. 24, 2024). NOAA found that, effective for the period from February 21, 2024,

through December 31, 2025, New Zealand had established that its fisheries’ measures for reducing

the bycatch of MƗui dolphins satisfy the provisions of the MMPA. See id. 1

New Zealand now moves to dissolve the preliminary injunction. See Unopposed Mot. of

the Gov’t of N.Z. to Dissolve the Prelim. Inj., Mar. 19, 2024, ECF No. 152. Plaintiffs do not

oppose, and Defendants consent to, the dissolution of the preliminary injunction. See id. at 2. The

court concludes that NOAA’s issuance of the new comparability findings, which supersede the

administrative actions underlying the preliminary injunction, constitutes a “significant change in

factual conditions and law.” Sea Shepherd III, 611 F. Supp. 3d at 1409–10 (quoting 11A Charles

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2961 (3d ed. 2022)). New

Zealand’s motion is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States
723 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (Court of International Trade, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
693 F. Supp. 3d 1364, 2024 CIT 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sea-shepherd-new-zealand-v-united-states-cit-2024.