US, Seafood Importers Oppose Conservation Groups' Bid to Join Suit on Looming Seafood Import Ban
Both the government and a group of seafood importers opposed three conservation groups' attempt to intervene in the seafood importers' case against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings on 240 fisheries across 46 nations, which will lead to an import ban from the fisheries on Jan. 1, 2026 (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The seafood companies filed suit to contest the comparability findings under both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (see 2510140025). The companies filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the comparability findings, arguing that they will suffer "immediate and compounding harm, including the risk of 'immediate layoffs, collapsing supply chains, and the permanent loss of customers and business viability' as the January 1, 2026 effective date nears."
Three conservation advocacy groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Animal Welfare Institute, moved to join the case (see 2510240027). The groups advanced three bases on which to intervene in the case, the first of which is their members' "aesthetic, recreational, and scientific interests in marine mammals incidentally caught in the affected Southeast Asian fisheries."
The second reason is related to their "contractual interest in defending the implementation of import bans under their settlement agreement" in a case they brought against the NMFS at the trade court, which sought to compel the agency to take action under the MMPA (see 2503250033). In that settlement agreement, NMFS agreed to establish a timeline to review various foreign fisheries.
While the conservation groups said this settlement gave them the right to join the present suit, the seafood importers said the "settlement provides no basis for intervention because it does not address the legal questions presented in this case." The conservation groups' suit didn't "prescribe the legal standards, interpretive approach, or evidentiary methodology NMFS was required to apply in conducting comparability assessments."
The U.S. agreed, arguing that the conservation groups' intervention "would arguably violate its contractual obligations under the same settlement agreement" they identify as the basis for their intervention. The groups got what they bargained for in their settlement agreement, namely NMFS agency action, the government said.
The groups lastly said they have an interest in preserving a "litigation foothold for future challenges to positive comparability findings in unrelated fisheries."
As part of the settlement, however, the groups agreed not to challenge a NMFS agency finding before Jan. 1, 2026, and they acknowledged that the trade court could order relief enjoining enforcement of one or more of the previously issued comparability findings. The groups now claim that this possibility "is somehow contrary to the benefits [they were] promised under that same agreement," the U.S. said. "But Plaintiffs expressly agreed to this possibility," and they can't "have it both ways."
The seafood importers said the conservation groups "seek to reassert the objectives of their separate settlement, advance their broader policy agenda, and position themselves for future lawsuits beyond the scope of this case -- all at the cost of delay to parties suffering immediate and compounding harm from an immovable statutory deadline."
The companies added that the conservation groups' claimed interests are "speculative, indirect, and adequately represented by existing defendants, who share the same objective of defending the challenged determinations." The court should decline to extend its permissive intervention authority to the groups as well, since "intervention would unduly delay resolution of Plaintiffs’ pending motion for preliminary injunction and prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain timely relief," the importers argued.