Diversity v. Raimondo

Background

The court previously granted summary judgment for the Center for Biological Diversity. Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the court determines that the material facts do not require a trial. In that earlier ruling, the court concluded that Gina Raimondo and the National Marine Fisheries Service could not indefinitely delay developing a take reduction plan for humpback whales while continuing to authorize permits for their incidental taking.

The humpback whale is protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The parties later entered into a settlement agreement approved by the court. Among other obligations, the agreement required the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a notice establishing a take reduction team by October 31, 2025, and to hold an initial team meeting by November 30, 2025. The opinion also states that the agency issued another permit allowing the commercial sablefish pot fishery to incidentally take humpback whales.

Request for a Stay

The government requested a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of the settlement deadlines because appropriated funds had lapsed. It proposed a stay lasting for the duration of the funding lapse and suggested that it might seek an additional stay after funding was restored. The Center for Biological Diversity opposed the request.

The court explained that the party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify one. The usual factors include the likelihood of success, irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The court also emphasized that a stay must be denied if the applicant fails to meet the required threshold for irreparable harm and that stays generally should not be indefinite.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the government did not address these governing standards in its request. The government stated that funding had lapsed for the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies, including the federal judiciary, and that agency employees were prohibited from working.

The Center for Biological Diversity pointed to the Department of Commerce’s plan for an orderly shutdown during a lapse in congressional funding. That plan listed as an excepted function the monitoring of trust resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other authorities to avoid irreparable harm to U.S. fishery or protected-species resources and to take necessary regulatory action.

The court determined that this exception fit the circumstances. It rejected the government’s reading that the exception applied only to certain fishery catch limits. The court said that reading ignored the plan’s express reference to protected-species trust resources. The court also rejected the government’s argument that the exception did not apply because the agency had not yet taken regulatory action on a whale take reduction plan. The court described that position as circular reasoning because it would make the exception inapplicable precisely because the agency had not developed the plan.

The court characterized the government’s interpretation of “monitoring” as arbitrary and self-serving and inconsistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the court’s earlier conclusions. It held that the government had not shown that the exception should be disregarded and had not otherwise established good grounds for the indefinite stay it requested.

Disposition

The court denied the stay. The provisions of the settlement agreement remained in full and active force.