Environmental Group, US Spar Over How to Dismiss Case Seeking Import Ban on NZ Fish
Conservation group Maui and Hector’s Dolphin Defenders NZ on Feb. 11 moved to voluntarily dismiss its case challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2024 comparability finding for certain New Zealand fisheries without prejudice, since it's instead challenging NMFS’s 2025 comparability finding that supplanted the 2024 findings in a separate case (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 24-00218).
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.
However, the U.S. refused to agree to the voluntary dismissal bid, urging the Court of International Trade to rule on its motion to dismiss rather than grant the conservation group's "procedurally incorrect position that it can simply move for voluntary dismissal." The government said "precedent is plain: the Court must assure itself of subject-matter jurisdiction before ruling on a" voluntary dismissal motion.
The conservation group originally challenged NMFS’ 2024 comparability findings on set net and trawl fisheries off New Zealand's North Island, and claimed New Zealand’s marine protection regulations failed to meet U.S. standards. Specifically, the group claimed New Zealand lacked a zero-mortality rate goal for endangered Maui dolphins, used inadequate bycatch regulations and had “nearly five times the permissible negligible impact standard” (see 2412050043).
The environmental group sought an import ban on fish from New Zealand's set net and trawl fisheries off the nation's North Island, citing the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s requirement for banning fish from foreign fisheries whose standards fail to limit marine animal harm to U.S. standards (see 2412050043).
Last year, CIT vacated NMFS’ 2024 comparability findings on the basis that they were "arbitrary and capricious,” though the court declined to order the agency to implement an import ban against the relevant New Zealand fisheries. Yet Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said the court's findings “may merit the implementation of an import ban going forward, if the agency continues to rely on an arbitrary and unlawful Decision Memorandum that could be regarded as equivalent to denying a comparability finding” (see 2508260047).
Following the court's decision, NMFS issued new comparability findings in 2025 of the fisheries at issue, leading the U.S. to move to dismiss Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's case on the basis that the lawsuit against the 2024 findings are mooted (see 2511250061). The conservation group then filed a new lawsuit contesting the 2025 comparability findings.
In light of the new findings, the environmental group agreed that its case on the 2024 comparability findings should be dismissed. However, the group argued a voluntary dismissal rather than undergoing dismissal proceedings would be “a simple and straightforward way” to avoid “unnecessary proceedings." The group added that it's "in the interest of judicial economy and conservation of the parties’ resources to proceed with just one case covering NMFS’s comparability finding for New Zealand’s fisheries.”
The U.S. and the government of New Zealand opposed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice despite it being “precisely what Federal Defendants are seeking with their motion to dismiss this case on mootness and standing grounds," the conservation group said.
Simultaneously, Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ requested “a briefing and a prompt ruling on its pending motion for a preliminary injunction before any voluntary remand, stay, or other delay of this case” regarding its case challenging NMFS’ 2025 comparability findings, according to a status report filed Feb. 11 (Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ v. National Marine Fisheries Service, CIT # 26-00060).
“For years, Federal Defendants have been twiddling their thumbs in responding to the existential threat New Zealand’s fisheries pose to Maui and Hector’s dolphins, issuing unlawful comparability finding after unlawful comparability finding despite the CIT repeatedly holding that the findings violate the law,” the environmental group said. “Now, Defendants are twiddling their thumbs in this case by finding every opportunity and excuse to delay this Court’s consideration of the latest of their unlawful findings.”
Furthermore, the environmental group said it “does not believe the parties will be able to agree on a remand process that also involves withdrawal of [Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's] preliminary injunction motion” and claimed “a preliminary injunction is needed in order to prevent further harm to imperiled dolphins and [Maui and Hector's Dolphin Defenders NZ's] interests in them during any lengthier remand or during regular proceedings in this case.”
On the other hand, the U.S. said the conservation group is trying to "avoid resolution" of the government's dismissal motion "all in an effort to fast track its pending preliminary injunction in the 2026 Proceedings, despite not requesting expedited treatment at the outset." The government added that resolving the motion to dismiss would "be the best use of judicial resources," since "resolution of that motion will functionally resolve any such disputes in the 2026 Proceedings" given the "jurisdictional connection between those two cases."