Humane Society of the United States v. Clinton
236 F.3d 1320, 52 ERC 1011 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statutory grant of jurisdiction to a court to hear specific civil actions against the United States also serves as a coextensive waiver of sovereign immunity. Furthermore, when a statute grants the President authority to act based on whether international consultations are 'satisfactorily concluded,' this language confers broad discretion that is not subject to judicial review or a writ of mandamus.
Facts:
- The United States passed the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act ('Driftnet Act') to combat large-scale driftnet fishing.
- The Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to identify nations whose vessels engage in this practice, after which the President must consult with the identified nation to secure an agreement to stop.
- If consultations are not 'satisfactorily concluded' within 90 days, the Act directs the President to impose import sanctions.
- After a prior court case, the Secretary of Commerce identified Italy as a nation whose vessels were engaged in illegal driftnet fishing.
- Following this identification, the President, through the Department of State, entered into consultations and reached an agreement with Italy in July 1996 to end the practice.
- The United States informed Italy that its proposals were sufficient to avoid sanctions.
- In January 1997, the Secretary of Commerce certified to the President and Congress that Italy had terminated large-scale driftnet fishing.
- The Humane Society subsequently presented evidence that Italian nationals and vessels continued to engage in illegal large-scale driftnet fishing during the 1997 and 1998 seasons, despite the agreement and certification.
Procedural Posture:
- The Humane Society sued the President and the Secretary of Commerce in the U.S. Court of International Trade (the trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to compel the President to impose sanctions on Italy and an injunction requiring the Secretary to rescind his 1997 certification that Italy had ceased illegal fishing.
- The Humane Society and the Government filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The Court of International Trade denied the mandamus request against the President, holding the duty to determine if consultations were 'satisfactorily concluded' was discretionary.
- The court also found the Secretary's 1997 certification was not arbitrary or capricious.
- However, the court granted the Humane Society's alternative request, ordering the Secretary to again identify Italy as a violator based on new evidence of illegal fishing.
- The Humane Society (as appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of mandamus and its ruling on the certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Driftnet Act impose a non-discretionary, judicially enforceable duty on the President to impose sanctions when consultations with a foreign nation over illegal fishing are not, in fact, successful in immediately ending the practice?
Opinions:
Majority - Plager
No. The Driftnet Act does not impose a non-discretionary duty on the President to impose sanctions; rather, it grants the President broad discretion in matters of foreign relations that is not subject to judicial review. The statutory phrase 'satisfactorily concluded' is broad and ill-defined, lacking a fixed, measurable standard that would limit the President's discretion. In matters of foreign affairs, congressional delegations of authority to the President are construed broadly. The President's determination involves a multifaceted judgment about the good faith of a foreign government and the feasibility of diplomatic solutions, which is a decision committed to presidential discretion and immune from judicial scrutiny. Additionally, the court held that the grant of jurisdiction to the Court of International Trade in 28 U.S.C. § 1581 also constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing the suit to proceed. Finally, the Secretary of Commerce's 1997 certification that Italy had terminated illegal fishing was not arbitrary and capricious because it was reasonably based on the official agreement reached with the Italian government, focusing on the nation's commitments rather than isolated, individual violations.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of judicial deference to the President's discretionary authority in foreign affairs. By interpreting the phrase 'satisfactorily concluded' as a non-justiciable political question, the court makes it exceedingly difficult for private parties to use litigation to compel specific presidential actions against foreign nations, even when a statute seems to mandate them. The ruling solidifies the President's role as the primary architect of foreign policy, insulating such judgments from judicial second-guessing. Additionally, the court's holding that the Court of International Trade's jurisdictional statute includes a waiver of sovereign immunity clarifies and strengthens that court's power to hear suits against the U.S. government concerning trade and embargo laws.
