Sea Shepherd New Zealand v. United States , 2024 CIT 37 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                           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.
    To be clear, this opinion does not preclude future legal challenges to NOAA’s new
    comparability findings. Nor does the court suggest any view on those new comparability findings.
    All this opinion means is that the particular administrative decision underlying the November 28,
    2022 preliminary injunction is no longer operative.         The MƗui dolphin remains critically
    1
    NOAA’s notice stated:
    As a result of these findings, [the National Marine Fisheries Service] announces the
    issuance of positive comparability findings that will allow the importation into the
    United States of fish and fish products harvested by New Zealand’s set-net and
    trawl fisheries operating off the West Coast North Island within the MƗui dolphin s
    range.
    Id. at 4597.
    Court No. 20-00112                                                                            Page 5
    endangered, and current estimates indicate that approximately forty-three dolphins remain. See R.
    Constantine, Int’l Union for Conservation of Nature and Nat. Res., The IUCN Red List of
    Threatened Species: Cephalorhynchus hectori ssp. maui 1 (2023), https://www.iucnredlist.org/
    species/39427/50380174; Mem. from A. Cole to J. Coit, re: Issuance of Comparability Findings
    for the Government of New Zealand’s Set-Net and Trawl Fisheries—Decision Memorandum at 2
    (NOAA Jan. 2, 2024), ECF No. 144-2 (“Decision Mem.”).
    Furthermore, this litigation is not yet concluded. In response to the parties’ Joint Motion
    to Govern Further Proceedings, Feb. 28, 2024, ECF No. 150, the court issued an order that (1)
    adopted the parties’ proposal to submit, within sixty days, a joint filing or separate filings with an
    update on the parties’ negotiations for this case’s stipulated dismissal, which may include issues
    of terms of dismissal, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and (2) required the parties to include a statement
    on their views of the status of the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Complaint. See
    Order, Mar. 13, 2024, ECF No. 151.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the preliminary injunction against Defendants, their agents
    and their employees, and those in active concert and participation with them, see Order at 2, ECF
    No. 109, is DISSOLVED.
    SO ORDERED.
    /s/     Gary S. Katzmann
    Judge
    Dated: April 1, 2024
    New York, New York
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-00112

Citation Numbers: 2024 CIT 37

Judges: Katzmann

Filed Date: 4/1/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/1/2024