US seafood coalition sues NOAA over Marine Mammal Protection Act rule, claiming rushed implementation and import bans will devastate supply chains. Photo:USCIT
A coalition of US seafood groups has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alleging that the agency’s implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) violates due process and threatens to devastate seafood supply chains.
The lawsuit, lodged in the Court of International Trade in New York, challenges NOAA’s “fish and fish product import provisions,” a rule finalised in 2016 but only now being enforced after nearly a decade of technical assessments. Under the rule, imported fish and seafood products from countries deemed not to have “equivalent” marine mammal protections will be banned from the US market starting 1 January 2026.
Industry Accuses NOAA of Ignoring Stakeholders
The plaintiffs, a group of seafood processors, distributors, and industry associations, say they are not opposed to the MMPA or its conservation goals. Instead, they accuse NOAA of applying the law in a manner that is unworkable and economically destructive.
“After a decade of assessing fisheries, without stakeholder input, NOAA has given affected 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 cannot be sustainably harvested at this volume in our own waters.”
According to the plaintiffs, the agency failed to account for what administrative law calls “reliance interests” — the legitimate expectations of businesses that have invested heavily based on prior policy. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal agencies must consider such interests before imposing new rules. The coalition argues NOAA did not do so, rendering the implementation process arbitrary and unlawful.
Background: What the MMPA Requires
The Marine Mammal Protection Act, originally enacted in 1972 and amended multiple times through 2023, prohibits the killing or harassment of marine mammals in US waters and by US citizens abroad. Section 101(a)(2) of the Act requires that imported seafood come from fisheries with standards “comparable in effectiveness” to those enforced domestically to reduce marine mammal bycatch.
NOAA’s 2016 rule created a ten-year exemption period, known as the Comparability Findings Process, allowing foreign fisheries to align with US marine mammal standards. However, according to the lawsuit, the agency concluded its reviews with little transparency or consultation, leaving exporters and US importers uncertain until the last moment.
Under the new enforcement, seafood from non-compliant countries will be barred from import on 1 January 2026, effectively cutting off trade in major products such as tuna, squid, sardines, and shrimp from regions in Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe.
“A Rule That Could Backfire”
Industry representatives warn that NOAA’s approach may backfire by diverting trade to less responsible markets rather than improving global conservation outcomes.
“Banning these products is very likely to do more harm than good,” said Gibbons. “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.”
The plaintiffs also argue that NOAA ignored the practical realities of global seafood supply chains. Many US processors rely on imported raw materials because comparable species cannot be caught sustainably or at sufficient volumes in domestic waters. They claim that losing access to these imports will not reduce fishing pressure globally; it will simply transfer demand to markets with weaker environmental oversight.
Jobs and Local Economies at Risk
The coalition says hundreds of American jobs are now at risk across seafood hubs from Maryland and Virginia to North Carolina and Florida. Plaintiffs include long-established processors and distributors who describe themselves as “strong proponents” of marine mammal conservation but who insist that “responsible and sensible application” of the MMPA is essential.
“The plaintiffs in this suit are worried about the fate of the fisheries and are well known for spearheading effective, pre-competitive sustainability work,” the complaint states. “Their businesses and hundreds of American jobs are at stake. Establishing a reasonable MMPA implementation plan is vital.”
A Legal Test for NOAA
The case is expected to test how far NOAA’s authority extends in applying domestic environmental standards to foreign fisheries. The 2023 amendments to the MMPA reaffirmed the agency’s mandate to ensure comparable protections, but the plaintiffs argue this mandate must be balanced against economic and procedural fairness under the Administrative Procedure Act.
If successful, the lawsuit could force NOAA to delay implementation or reopen consultations with affected seafood sectors. If not, the January 2026 import ban will proceed, potentially reshaping US seafood markets and raising costs for consumers.
