2018 CIT 143
Ct. Int'l Trade2018Background
- The vaquita, a critically endangered porpoise endemic to the northern Gulf of California, faces imminent extinction (≈15 individuals); bycatch in gillnets is the primary cause.
- Plaintiffs (NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute) sued federal agencies and officials for failing to implement the MMPA imports provision requiring a ban on imports where foreign fishing results in marine mammal mortality in excess of U.S. standards.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction (July 26, 2018), ordering a targeted import ban on Mexican shrimp, curvina, sierra, and chano (and products) caught with gillnets within the vaquita’s range unless affirmatively shown otherwise; implementation followed via Federal Register/CBP procedures.
- The Government appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal, arguing legal error, harm from the injunction, and interference with negotiations with Mexico.
- The Court considered the four-factor stay test (likelihood of success, irreparable injury, harm to others, public interest) and concluded the Government failed to meet its burden for a stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Plaintiffs’ members have concrete vaquita-related interests harmed by government inaction; relief would redress injury. | Government disputes traceability/redressability. | Court held plaintiffs have standing. |
| Whether the MMPA imposes a mandatory duty to ban imports when foreign bycatch exceeds U.S. standards and whether agency unlawfully withheld action under APA §706(1) | MMPA’s imports provision is mandatory (“shall”) and requires the Secretary to ban imports when standards are exceeded; agency failed to act. | Agency claimed discretion and preferred regulatory/negotiated approach; urged deference to agency implementation choices. | Court held the statute unambiguous and mandatory; agency unlawfully withheld discrete mandatory action. |
| Irreparable harm / balance of equities | Vaquita extinction (irreparable) and targeted ban narrowly tailored; public interest favors species preservation and statutory compliance. | Injunction causes logistical burdens, harms to importers and could chill diplomatic negotiations. | Court held plaintiffs’ irreparable harm and public interest outweighed speculative government harms; injunction appropriate. |
| Stay pending appeal (likelihood of success) | Plaintiffs: injunction lawful and necessary; will likely prevail on merits. | Government: strong likelihood of success on appeal; merits errors justify stay. | Court found Government failed to show strong likelihood of success or a substantial case favoring a stay; denied stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay standard for injunctions)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (factors for stay pending appeal)
- Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 670 F.3d 1238 (agency cannot override clear Congressional mandate)
- Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246 (courts constrain administrative constructions inconsistent with statute)
- FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27 (courts are final authorities on statutory construction)
- Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129 (legislative history does not overcome clear statutory text)
- Virginian R. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (stay is discretionary)
- Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., [citation="404 F. App'x 481"] (movant must show likelihood of success or substantial case when harm factors favor relief)