799 F.Supp.3d 1327
Ct. Int'l Trade2025Background
- The plaintiff, Māui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ Inc., challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 2024 “comparability finding,” which allowed imports of New Zealand fish products by determining New Zealand’s fishery regulation standards were comparable to U.S. standards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
- The NMFS's Decision Memorandum at issue concerned two specific fisheries: the West coast, North Island multi-species set-net and trawl fisheries, previously subject to an import ban following a court injunction in 2022.
- NMFS had issued a positive comparability determination in January 2024 based on additional submissions from New Zealand, superseding both previous determinations and the injunction.
- Defenders challenged NMFS's decision as arbitrary and unsupported by the record, alleging failures in NMFS’s analysis of comparability, use of best available data, explanation of its conclusions, and consideration of impacts on marine mammals other than Māui dolphins.
- The Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(C), with review governed by the Administrative Procedure Act's arbitrary and capricious standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Comparability Findings | NMFS did not properly evaluate comparability or use best data | Memorandum was supported by the record and MMPA requirements | NMFS’s findings arbitrary and capricious |
| Zero Mortality Rate Goal | New Zealand’s program not comparable to U.S. zero-mortality goal | NZ’s regime is comparable/exceeds U.S. requirements | NMFS failed to explain comparability; arbitrary |
| Negligible Impact Standard | NMFS failed to assess if NZ standard matched “negligible impact” requirement | NZ’s program is comparable to U.S. negligible impact standard | NMFS failed to consider/apply proper standard; arbitrary |
| Bycatch Limit Sufficiency | NZ’s bycatch limit and calculation method inadequate | NZ applied a comparable bycatch limit and threat management measures | NMFS failed to explain/cite evidence; arbitrary |
| Population Estimate Use | Relied on outdated/inaccurate dolphin population data | Relied on best available scientific information | NMFS failed to address contrary evidence; arbitrary |
| Monitoring Program Comparability | NZ’s monitoring not comparable for endangered species | NZ’s observer + electronic monitoring was sufficient | NMFS failed to compare standards/cite evidence; arbitrary |
| Stock Assessments | NZ assessments not equivalent to U.S. standards | Stock assessment was adequately reviewed and supported | NMFS failed to compare processes; arbitrary |
| Other Marine Mammal Bycatch | NMFS ignored other species impacted | NZ protections apply to all marine mammals equally | NMFS findings unsupported for other species; arbitrary |
| Remedy: Import Ban | Vacatur + order NMFS to implement import ban | Only remand appropriate; no ban required unless comparability denied | Vacate & remand; no import ban compelled at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious review requires reasoned explanation for agency action)
- F.C.C. v. Fox Tele. Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (agency determination must articulate rational connection between facts and decision)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (requires agencies to provide supporting rationale for decisions)
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (court’s power to compel agency action limited to discrete, required actions)
- Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocs., Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 260 F.3d 1365 (standards for remand with and without vacatur)