A seafood industry coalition has filed a lawsuit at the Court of International Trade in New York City against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) over implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Plaintiffs include the National Fisheries Institute (NFI); the Restaurant Law Center; Phillips Foods, Inc.; Heron Point Seafood, LLC; Newport International of Tierra Verde, Inc.; 3Fish, Inc.; Handy Seafood Inc.; Shaw’s Southern Belle Frozen Foods, Inc.; Supreme Crab & Seafood, Inc.; Cebu Pacific LLC; and Byrd International Inc.
In addition to NOAA, defendants named include the US Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and agency officials sued in their official capacities, among them Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
NFI has made it clear that while supporting the goals of the MMPA, it believes the law was not responsibly or sensibly applied in regard to implementation. A press release issued by the Reston, Virginia-headquartered trade association on October 9 stated: “Parties to this lawsuit are strong proponents of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They do not oppose it. They support its goals and want to see it responsibly and sensibly applied.”
Angelo Amador, executive director of the Restaurant Law Center, commented: “This is not about opposing the Marine Mammal Protection Act – we support its goals. But NOAA’s rushed and opaque implementation is poised to devastate seafood supply chains that restaurants across the country rely on. Without access to these products, many restaurants will be forced to remove popular seafood items from their menus, raise prices, or worse—close their doors.”
The MMPA’s final rule on “fish and fish product import provisions” was published in 2016. After ten years of assessing fisheries to determine whether they have equivalent marine mammal protections in place, NOAA released the results on September 2. Products from fisheries deemed not equivalent will be banned from the United States market beginning January 1, 2026.
“After a decade of assessing fisheries, without stakeholder input, NOAA has given effected members of the seafood community only four months to come into compliance or face complete shutdown,” said Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer for the National Fisheries Institute. “We are talking about US processing and distribution businesses working with imported raw materials that can’t be sustainably harvested at this volume in our own waters.”
He added: “Federal agencies are required to consider something called ‘reliance interests’ when conducting rule making. This is an examination of how such policies might affect work done here and the market. In clear violation of the Administrative Procedures Act it appears NOAA did not do that.
“What’s more, banning these products is very likely to do more harm than good. Shutting off commerce with fisheries gives up leverage and actually encourages selling to countries with little or no marine mammal protections. Fears about unintended consequences are very real.”
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are worried about the fate of the fisheries and are well known for spearheading effective, pre-competitive work. Despite being excluded from NOAA’s assessment process they are experts in the target fisheries and have engineered market-driven sustainable sourcing changes for years. Along with concern for the resource, their businesses and hundreds of American jobs are at stake from Maryland and Virginia to North Carolina and Florida.
