US Opposes Expedited Briefing Schedule in Fisheries Settlement Implementation Dispute
In a Dec. 16 response to several wildlife advocacy groups’ request that the Court of International Trade compel the Commerce Department to comply with a settlement agreement (see 2512150022), the government opposed an expedited schedule, saying the groups’ “own delay has contributed to the compressed time schedule” (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Howard Lutnick, CIT # 24-00148).
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.
It asked for the full amount of time allotted under the Court of International Trade’s regular rules to issue a substantive response.
The advocacy groups -- the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Biological Diversity and the Animal Welfare Institute -- reached a settlement with the U.S. in a 2024 case, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Gina Raimondo, in March 2025. The settlement saw the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agree to ban importation of fish from all countries barring a finding that a country’s fishery regulations were comparable to the United States’ (see 2503250033).
In a separate case brought by the National Fisheries Institute, however, the U.S. then reached a settlement in which it agreed to stay an import ban against five countries’ swimming crab fisheries as it reconsidered negative comparability findings against them (see 2510310035). NRDC, the lead plaintiff of its case, then sought expedited consideration of its motion to compel compliance with the initial settlement.
But, first, the advocacy groups themselves delayed before seeking the help of the court, meaning that, under the expedited schedule, the government’s time to draft a response overlapped with two federal holidays, the U.S. said.
Under the terms of the initial settlement, the parties were supposed to first attempt to resolve any disputes during a 30-day period. The advocacy groups contacted the U.S. with their dispute on Oct. 31, 2025, meaning that the parties had until Nov. 30, 2025, to resolve the issue themselves. After several conferences throughout November, the advocacy groups said on Nov. 18 that they didn’t think resolution would be possible, though they all met one more time on Nov. 24.
But instead of filing their motion with the court “promptly” on Nov. 30, the day the period expired, NRDC waited “nearly two weeks,” the U.S. said. As a result, the government’s response was due after Jan. 1.
Second, it said, NRDC didn’t provide any explanation or justification for the expedited schedule.
It also said that this initial matter shouldn’t be resolved until the court has separately ruled on the intervention request of the National Fisheries Institute.