Turtle Island Restoration Network v. United States Department of Commerce, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1004

Background

Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants moved to enter a stipulated injunction as an order of the court to resolve claims arising from NMFS's Final Rule implementing Amendment 18 to the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery.
HLA intervened; this action was consolidated with HLA’s separate suit challenging the rule and related determinations.
The court previously dismissed the original complaint for pleading deficiencies and later allowed an amended complaint.
The Joint Motion would vacate portions of the 2008 BiOp and ITS relating to loggerhead and leatherback turtles, remand those portions to NMFS, and reinstate the pre-2004 incidental take limits.
The court conducted a hearing, reviewed supplemental briefing, and concluded the proposed consent decree is fair, reasonable, and equitable and should be entered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed consent decree is fair, reasonable, and does not violate law or public policy	Plaintiffs argued the decree best serves ESA/MSA goals and public interests	Defendants argued the decree appropriately balances interests and maintains public protections	Yes; the decree is fair, reasonable, and does not violate law/public policy
Whether APA/MSA/ESA/NEPA apply to consent decrees	HLA contends these statutes apply to agency actions and thus to settlements	Court should treat consent decree as a judicial act not requiring agency procedures	No; these statutes do not apply to judicial acts like consent decrees
Whether the decree appropriately vacates/remands portions of the 2008 BiOp/Final Rule and reinstates 2004 levels	HLA challenges the scope of vacatur/remand as overbroad	Decree provides targeted vacatur/remand while preserving other provisions	Yes; the stipulations vacate/remand specific portions and reinstate prior levels as described
Public interest and agency discretion concerns	Settlement could constrain NMFS’s future actions	Time-limited, non-prescriptive terms protect agency discretion while advancing ESA/MSA objectives	Yes; public interest and agency discretion are adequately protected

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1990) (approval of consent decree within sound discretion; fair, reasonable, and equitable)
Sierra Club v. Electric Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1990) (consent decrees must be fair and do not violate public policy)
Montrose Chem. Corp. v. City of Cal., 50 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 1995) (court must independently scrutinize decree terms)
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (Supreme Court 2004) (consent decrees reflect government participation and not mere contracts)
Local No. 93, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (limits on judicial approval and need for meaningful oversight)
United States v. Cannons Eng’g Corp., 899 F.2d 79 (1st Cir. 1990) (court must not rubber-stamp settlements; careful review required)
Oregon v. Telluride Co., 849 F. Supp. 1400 (D. Colo. 1994) (court may approve settlements balancing harms and public policy)
Telluride Co., 849 F. Supp. 1400 (D. Colo. 1994) (consent decrees require fairness and public-interest validation)
Home Builders Ass’ns of Northern California v. Norton, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002) (consent decree not necessarily agency rulemaking; admissible under judicial act)
Ramsey v. Kantor, 96 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizes limits on agency actions and that settlements are not meritorious adjudications)
Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (consent decree not an agency action; public notice not required)
BP Exploration & Oil Co., 167 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (settlement as preferred to merits litigation when fair and equitable)
United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d 1409 (6th Cir. 1991) (procedural and substantive fairness considered in consent decrees)