CIT Denies US Motion to Stay Case on Import Ban on 240 Fisheries, Speeds Up Case
The Court of International Trade on Oct. 22 denied the government's motion to stay judicial proceedings in a lawsuit from various seafood importers against the National Marine Fisheries Service's comparability findings of 240 fisheries across 46 nations. While the U.S. said the case should be stayed due to the federal government shutdown, Judge Joseph Laroski said the government's concerns regarding the shutdown, "while substantial, do not outweigh the urgency of judicial review" in this case due to the harm alleged by the importers (National Fisheries Institute v. United States, CIT # 25-00223).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case was recently filed by two trade associations, the National Fisheries Institute and the Restaurant Law Center, and 10 individual importers to contest the NMFS' comparability findings, which will lead to an import ban on all seafood products from these fisheries effective Jan. 1, 2026 (see 2510140025). The seafood companies made a host of claims against the comparability findings, including that they violated both the text of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
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."
In moving to stay the case, the government said the lapse in federal appropriations means DOJ and the Commerce Department are facing "significant staffing challenges and resource limitations to date." Responding to the preliminary injunction motion will require "substantial time and effort" compiling and reviewing the administrative record, the U.S. said.
Laroski said this isn't true, since a "complete, certified administrative record is not required for the Government to brief the preliminary injunction issues at bar." And while the government's concerns regarding the shutdown are substantial, they don't outweigh the harm claimed by the seafood companies. The judge said the government failed to meet the "heavy burden" placed on a party seeking a stay of judicial proceedings, adding that it also didn't sufficiently demonstrate "good cause for an extension" to reply to the preliminary injunction motion.
The U.S. was ordered to file its reply by Oct. 30, and a virtual hearing on the preliminary injunction motion was scheduled for Nov. 5.
The judge's order also came after the seafood companies filed a motion to expedite the proceedings, which requested that the court speed up the briefing schedule and hold an "emergency hearing at the earliest practicable date." The companies said good cause for doing so is "overwhelming," since with each passing day, the injury "deepens." The companies are starting to shutter operations, workers are being laid off and supply chains and commercial relationships "are disintegrating in real time."