Court overrides Trump officials' rollback and blocks fishing in Pacific Islands monument
The decision from judge Micah WJ Smith overturns an April letter released by the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) – also known as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Fisheries – that allowed fishing in parts of the monument that Barack Obama had protected during his presidency. The letter came about a week after Donald Trump's presidential proclamation to reverse fishing regulations across the national monument, a world heritage site that includes archeological treasures, marine mammals, seabirds and coral reefs.
Regulations banning commercial fishing in the area remain in effect, according to Friday's ruling. The court said 'no commercial fishing operators may reasonably rely on' the April letter, meaning fishing in waters 50 to 200 nautical miles around Johnston Atoll, Jarvis Island, and Wake Island must halt immediately.
'The Fisheries Service cannot ignore our perspectives as the native people who belong to the islands and to the ocean that surrounds us,' said Solomon Pili Kaho'ohalahala, founding member of the non-profit group Kāpaʻa, the Conservation Council for Hawaii and the Center for Biological Diversity. 'The law guarantees a process where we can advocate for protecting the generations of our children's children who are yet to be born.'
The environmental conservation group Earthjustice, representing the non-profits in Hawaii, filed its lawsuit in May and argued NMFS violated federal law by bypassing the formal process for changing fishing rules, which requires public notice and comment.
'The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration's outrageous claim that it can dismantle vital protections for the monument's unique and vulnerable species and ecosystems without involving the public,' Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said.
Then president George W Bush created the marine monument in 2009. It consists of about 500,000 sq miles (1.3m sq km) in the remote central Pacific Ocean south-west of Hawaii. Obama expanded it in 2014.
As part of his push to make the US the 'world's dominant seafood leader', Trump called the regulations 'so horrible and so stupid' – and claimed they force US fishers 'to go and travel four to seven days to go and fish in an area that's not as good'.
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument is about 370,000 sq nautical miles (1,270,000 sq km), or nearly twice the size of the state of Texas. It is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Noaa and the defense department. The monument is home to one of the largest collections of deep ocean coral reef, seabird, and shorebird protected areas on the planet. It provides refuge for species threatened by the climate crisis and other stressors caused by humans.
Kingman Reef, considered one of the most pristine coral reefs in US waters, is also part of the monument. Unesco reports it has the highest proportion of apex predators of any studied coral reef worldwide.
Its waters are home to several shark species, including grey reef, oceanic whitetip, hammerhead and silky sharks, all of which play an important role in maintaining ecological balance.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Along with the ecological value, the islands and ocean areas in and adjacent to the monument hold great value to Indigenous Pacific Islanders and researchers. The lawsuit says allowing commercial fishing in the monument expansion would harm the 'cultural, spiritual, religious, subsistence, educational, recreational, and aesthetic interests' of a group of Native Hawaiian plaintiffs who are connected genealogically to the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific.
'This is a huge win for the Pacific's irreplaceable marine life and for the rule of law,' Maxx Phillips, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said about Friday's ruling. 'These sacred and irreplaceable ecosystems are home to endangered species, deep-sea corals, and rich cultural heritage.'
Associated Press contributed to this report
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
‘No deal': Putin met a tougher Trump in Alaska than the one he steamrolled in Helsinki seven years ago
Nearly eight years after Donald Trump turned in such an embarrassing performance at his first summit with Vladimir Putin that members of his own party were left struggling to defend him, critics feared he was set for a repeat performance in Alaska Friday. Putin — on what was once sovereign Russian land — after three years of isolation brought on by his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, hoping he could charm, cajole and flatter Trump into taking his side over that of Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump arrived first, and the two leaders met on a red-carpeted tarmac for a handshake. It was there that Putin got his first surprise. As the leaders walked towards waiting reporters and photographers, a noise above drew the Russian leader's attention. He looked up to see something that on any other day, in any other place, would have meant very bad things for him: The belly of an American B-2 bomber, a machine built to kill him by dropping nuclear weapons on Moscow without detection by Soviet (later Russian) air defense systems. Trump then pulled Putin into his waiting limousine for a shared ride to their talks, bypassing the armored car that had been brought from Moscow for the Russian president's use. Next, the one-on-one meeting Putin had expected became a three-on-three session with him and two of his aides across from Trump, his special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Only after that could Putin expect to have Trump sit down with a group of Russian business leaders who he'd brought with him, expecting the American leader to be swayed with the promise of investment and business opportunities in the same way other foreign leaders have curried favor with Trump. It never happened. After nearly three hours of talks, Trump and Putin walked out to face hundreds of reporters who'd gathered in expectation of a joint press conference. Speaking first, Putin appeared optimistic about the talks as he said he and Trump had come to 'agreements' and described Ukraine — the sovereign nation he invaded and has been pillaging since March 2022 — as Russia's 'brotherly nation' and claimed Russia wants to end the conflict. Through a translator, the Russian strongman repeated oft-used lines about addressing what he calls the 'primary roots, the primary causes of that conflict' — meaning his desire for Ukraine to end any ambitions to integrate with the West by joining the European Union or NATO — and said any settlement in the conflict must 'consider all legitimate concerns of Russia and to reinstate a just balance of security in Europe and in world on the whole.' But moments later, Trump torpedoed Putin's claim to have reached an agreement, telling reporters instead that there were 'many points that we agreed on' during the talks but there were still 'a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there.' 'So there's no deal until there's a deal,' Trump summed it up. The president stressed that any future deal would have to receive assent from the Ukrainian government as well as America's NATO allies, and said he'd be 'calling up ... the various people that I think are appropriate,' as well as Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to read them in on what transpired behind closed doors today. Trump added that the meeting, in his estimation, had been 'very productive' and included 'many points' that had been agreed to, and said there was a "good chance" of reaching some sort of accord going forward. A second meeting has been floated in recent days by Trump but has not been confirmed. Putin suggested to Trump in English: 'Next time in Moscow,' which the president said he could 'get a little heat' for but added he could see it 'possibly happening.' Trump thanked the reporters for attending and he and Putin quickly left the stage. Within the hour, both leaders' aircraft were wheels up and bound for home. There were no fireworks, there was no grand bargain rolled out, and it wasn't clear what — if anything — the two leaders had actually agreed on at all. And while some commentators were casting the lackluster result as a win for Putin because Trump hadn't rolled out the sanctions he has spent weeks threatening, the Russian leader most likely wasn't smiling as his plane climbed away from Alaska. That's because he failed to do what he'd done in Helsinki, where he'd charmed and flattered Trump into taking his side over America's own intelligence services. He'd even failed to bring Trump back to his previous anti-Ukraine worldview, that which was on display in February when he and Vice President JD Vance got into an Oval Office shouting match with Zelensky before throwing him out of the White House. Instead, he had to watch as Trump reaffirmed that the final settlement in the war he'd started would have to pass muster with Zelensky, the man who he'd hoped to kill in the opening days of the war. The years between Helsinki and Anchorage — and the months between February and now — have seen Trump go through trials (literally) and tests. For better or worse, he's no longer the neophyte, easily flattered naif who Putin made a fool of in Finland all those years ago. And though he's long had an uneasy relationship with both Zelensky and NATO, the months since that disastrous bilateral meeting have seen him grow more and more frustrated with Putin and better understand the European desire to avoid rewarding attempts at military conquest on their soil. It wasn't a perfect result, but Trump is learning. And now, Putin knows that.
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
Trump says no imminent plans to penalize China for buying Russian oil
WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to "in two or three weeks." Trump has threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries that buy its oil if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. The president last week imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing its continued imports of Russian oil. However, Trump has not taken similar action against China. He was asked by Fox News' Sean Hannity if he was now considering such action against Beijing after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to produce an agreement to resolve or pause Moscow's war in Ukraine. "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," Trump said after his summit with Putin in Alaska. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Chinese President Xi Jinping's slowing economy will suffer if Trump follows through on a promise to ramp up Russia-related sanctions and tariffs. Xi and Trump are working on a trade deal that could lower tensions - and import taxes - between the world's two biggest economies. But China could be the biggest remaining target, outside of Russia, if Trump ramps up punitive measures.
