2018 CIT 100
Ct. Int'l Trade2018Background
- The vaquita, a critically endangered porpoise in the northern Gulf of California, has declined to ~15 individuals; even one additional bycatch death risks extinction.
- Vaquita mortalities are caused by gillnets used in overlapping Mexican commercial fisheries for shrimp, curvina, sierra, and chano; shrimp and chano gillnetting is illegal in Mexico but continues.
- Plaintiffs (NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Welfare Institute) sued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Imports Provision, 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(2), seeking a preliminary injunction banning imports of fish caught with gillnets in the vaquita’s range.
- On July 26, 2018, the Court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Government to ban imports from Mexican fisheries using gillnets in the vaquita’s range; defendants moved to clarify scope and timing.
- The Court clarified that the MMPA import ban covers fish caught in both legal and illegal fisheries (including shrimp and chano), that overlapping statutes (Lacey Act, Magnuson‑Stevens) do not preclude MMPA enforcement, and that the injunction is effective immediately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MMPA Imports Provision apply to fish caught in illegal fisheries? | MMPA imports ban covers fish caught with gear that causes marine mammal bycatch regardless of legality. | MMPA enforcement traditionally addresses lawful commercial fishing; illegal fisheries should be excluded. | Applies to both legal and illegal fisheries; statute’s text does not limit by legality. |
| Which species/fisheries are covered by the injunction? | Injunction should cover shrimp, curvina, sierra, and chano taken with gillnets in the vaquita’s range. | Government sought narrower identification or exclusion of illegal fisheries. | Court ordered immediate ban on imports of shrimp, curvina, sierra, and chano caught with gillnets in the vaquita range. |
| Do other statutes (Lacey Act, Magnuson‑Stevens) displace or render MMPA inoperative? | MMPA duties are independent and complementary to other statutes. | Lacey Act/Magnuson‑Stevens provide alternate enforcement and penalties and thus limit MMPA scope. | Other statutes do not preclude MMPA enforcement; overlapping statutes can coexist. |
| Is the injunction effective immediately given regulatory/implementation challenges? | Immediate effectiveness is necessary to prevent imminent extinction and follows MMPA’s command. | Government argued administrative steps (certificates, regs) required and require time. | Injunction effective immediately; Court enjoined imports unless affirmatively shown to be non‑gillnet or taken outside vaquita range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alfa Int’l Seafood v. Ross, 264 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2017) (overlapping statutory authorities can coexist; no sole agency authority for seafood regulation)
- Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005) (compliance with one statutory scheme does not relieve obligations under another environmental statute)
- Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, 881 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (standards for reconsideration/narrowing of injunctive relief under rule addressing post‑decision motions)