Saving Seafood

Judge rejects delay, keeps Samoa mining lawsuit on track before sale

September 23, 2026 — A federal judge in Honolulu has refused to let the Trump administration delay a hearing that could decide whether a deep-sea mining lease sale off American Samoa broke federal law, leaving open the chance that a court could block the sale before it happens.

U.S. District Judge Jill Otake denied the government’s motion to continue in an order issued Friday. She kept an Oct. 30 hearing intact on Earthjustice’s motion for summary judgment, meaning the case could be decided roughly three weeks before American Samoa’s lease sale, tentatively set for Nov. 19.

Earthjustice’s lawsuit targets the National Marine Fisheries Service, not the Marine Minerals Administration, the Interior agency actually running the sale. The fisheries service issued what’s called a letter of concurrence, agreeing with MMA’s finding that leasing wouldn’t likely harm whales, sea turtles and other protected species. Earthjustice argues the agency never seriously weighed what mining itself, not just leasing, could do to marine life.

The timing carries weight beyond American Samoa. Earthjustice is pursuing a nearly identical case over mining leases planned 47 miles from Guam, and the attorney handling both cases says the Hawaii ruling will shape how the Marianas fight unfolds.

“How things go with American Samoa will greatly inform how things go with (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands),” said Harley Broyles, the Earthjustice attorney, in an interview Wednesday with The Guam Daily Post, “because of the similarity of the issues.”

Read the full article at The Guam Daily Post

Lawsuits challenge deep-sea mining in Marianas, American Samoa

September 14, 2026 — Conservation and community groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the Trump administration’s plan to kickstart deep-sea mining off the coasts of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. The first lawsuit was specific to the Trump administration’s attempt to launch deep-sea mining off the coast of American Samoa.

Meanwhile, CNMI Del. Kimberlyn King-Hinds wants territories to get a 50% cut of revenues from any deep-sea mining leases.

Tuesday’s lawsuit is the second filed by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization, on behalf of parties Our Common Wealth 670, PåganWatch, Conservation Council for Hawai’i and Center for Biological Diversity. The first lawsuit was specific to the Trump administration’s attempt to launch deep-sea mining off the coast of American Samoa.

The mining leases were advanced by the Marine Minerals Administration in July and August, first for the seabed of American Samoa and then for the Marianas Islands. A lease sale is planned for Dec. 16 for the Marianas and for American Samoa in November.

Read the full article at Samoa News

Nonprofit sues over U.S. push to auction areas of water around American Samoa for potential mining

August 20, 2026 — A legal environmental group sued the U.S. government on Tuesday to halt the Trump administration’s plans announced last month to auction off sections of water surrounding American Samoa for potential deep-sea mining.

Earthjustice filed the lawsuit against the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on behalf of two groups: Fa‘asao Amerika Samoa and Conservation Council for Hawai‘i.

The legal nonprofit is requesting that a judge order the National Marine Fisheries Service to stop moving forward with its plans and to comply with the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws.

“The United States has never opened its waters to deep-sea mining. Until now,” the lawsuit stated.

It noted that the U.S. plans to sell leases with the intention of allowing mining across 33 million acres of seabed off American Samoa that is rich in minerals including nickel, cobalt and manganese that are used to build batteries, electronics and other products.

Read the full article at NBC News

Alaskan fishing management on the hook in Ninth Circuit

August 11, 2026 — An ocean conservation group asked a Ninth Circuit panel on Monday to make the National Fisheries Management Service take another look at the impact of fishing on essential fish habitat offshore of Alaska.

“All the court needs to decide is a straightforward legal question: Can the Fisheries Service meet its obligation to minimize all adverse effects on all designated essential fish habitat by using only two tests to identify those adverse effects?” posited Katherine Glover, Earthjustice attorney representing Oceana.

Oceana, an advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation, sued the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2024. It accused the service of using the wrong criteria when looking at the effects of fishing on essential fish habitat offshore of Alaska.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the service is required to identify and protect “essential fish habitat” necessary to sustain healthy fish populations.  As part of that, the service is obligated to minimize adverse impacts on essential fish habitats caused by fishing.

The service approved five amendments to management plans for federally managed groundfish, crab and salmon fisheries in the waters near Alaska, and Oceana accused the service of relying on only two flawed tests to make its decision. One is the core essential fish habitat test and the other is the minimum stock size threshold test.

Read the full article at Courthouse News Service

Environmental groups sue government to stop a big change to the Endangered Species Act

July 15, 2026 — By altering the interpretation of a single word in the Endangered Species Act, the Trump administration has made what could be a sweeping change to how wildlife is protected in the United States.

That word is “harm.” For more than 50 years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defined harm to refer to anything that injures or kills a protected organism, including “significant habitat modification or degradation” that might impact a species’ ability to feed, reproduce or seek shelter.

But now, the federal government has officially rescinded that definition — a move that is already being challenged in court.

“This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement Friday, when the change was announced.

“The final rule will restore the definition of ‘harm’ to its original intent as written under the ESA, and will maintain protections for endangered species while reducing unnecessary or duplicative permitting requirements, cutting compliance costs, and eliminating confusion for Americans,” a representative for NOAA Fisheries said in an emailed statement Tuesday.

But environmental groups worry the rule change, which goes into effect on September 14, could destroy the wild places that endangered species depend on, undermining the protections that have helped sustain them.

Shortly after the new rule was published in the federal register Tuesday, the law firm Earthjustice, alongside more than half a dozen other environmental groups, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries (also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service).

Kristen Boyles, an attorney with the group, told NPR that they’re contesting the change on various levels. “The agencies haven’t explained themselves adequately,” she says. “Making this kind of dramatic change doesn’t make any legal sense because it goes against the fundamental purpose and spirit of the statute itself. All of those things make it an unreasoned and unreasonable decision.”

Read the full article at NPR

 

Red snapper fight heads to court over expanded South Atlantic seasons

May 18, 2026 — Ocean Conservancy and Earthjustice have filed an amicus brief in federal court opposing a recent decision to allow expanded recreational harvest of South Atlantic red snapper, raising concerns that the move could lead to overfishing and conflict with federal law.

The brief was filed in Southeastern Fisheries Association v. Lutnick in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. At issue are exempted fishing permits approved May 1 for Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The permits significantly extend recreational red snapper seasons in the South Atlantic, a change that conservation groups argue could exceed established harvest limits.

According to Ocean Conservancy, the current annual catch limit for the recreational sector is 22,797 fish. The group cited recent landings data showing that a two-day season in Florida alone resulted in 24,885 fish landed—already surpassing that limit. Using that rate, and projecting across a longer season, Ocean Conservancy estimates total landings could reach as high as 485,000 fish over a 39-day period.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

US lawmakers want NOAA Fisheries to consider climate impacts and shifting stocks in setting fishing quotas

February 5, 2026 — A trio of U.S. senators have introduced legislation that would require NOAA Fisheries to consider the impact of climate change on fish distribution in setting commercial fishing quotas.

“This legislation addresses outdated fishing requirements and ensures that climate change conditions like rising water temperatures that shift fish stocks are prioritized in fishery management plans. Our changing climate has seriously altered our oceans, forcing fishermen to travel far distances to earn a living or throw back valuable fish,” U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said in a release.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

US fishing groups to sue over chemicals in tires

August 30, 2023 — Two fishing industry groups plan to sue a baker’s dozen of U.S. tire manufacturers over a chemical found in rubber tires, which the groups claim have had “devastating impacts” on salmon and steelhead.

The chemical, 6PPD, is used to prevent tires from degrading too quickly. However, it breaks down into 6PPD-quinone when exposed to ground-level ozone. The new chemical can kill coho salmon within hours of exposure and can lead to urban runoff mortality syndrome, according to environmental nonprofit Earthjustice, which is representing the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) in the lawsuit.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Environmental law group threatens to sue tire manufacturers over pollutants

August 22, 2023 — On Aug. 15, environmental litigation group, Earthjustice, notified more than a dozen American tire manufacturers of their intent to sue them over violations of the Endangered Species Act if they do nothing to stop their alleged chemical pollution.

In the letter to the tire manufacturers, Earthjustice acknowledges that the suit is being made on behalf of the Institute for Fisheries Resources and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, because chemicals used in the production of tires has had adverse impacts on coho, steelhead and Chinook salmon species.

Read the full story at Seattle Weekly

Judge throws out Trump-era rollbacks on endangered species

July 6, 2022 — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a host of actions by the Trump administration to roll back protections for endangered or threatened species, a year after the Biden administration said it was moving to strengthen such species protections.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in Northern California eliminated the Trump-era rules even as two wildlife agencies under President Joe Biden are reviewing or rescinding the regulations. The decision restores a range of protections under the Endangered Species Act — including some that date to the 1970s — while the reviews are completed. Environmental groups hailed the decision, which they said sped up needed protections and critical habitat designations for threatened species, including salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

Tigar’s ruling “spoke for species desperately in need of comprehensive federal protections without compromise,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. “Threatened and endangered species do not have the luxury of waiting under rules that do not protect them.”

The court ruling comes as two federal agencies — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service — review five Endangered Species Act regulations finalized by President Donald Trump’s administration, including critical habitat designations and rules requiring federal agencies to consult with the wildlife or fisheries services before taking actions that could affect threatened or endangered species.

Read the full story at the AP News