Consumer Electronics Daily was a Warren News publication.

Biden Admin Must Decide on Step Toward Mexican Wildlife Embargo by May

Three conservation groups reached a settlement with the Interior Department that will require the agency to soon reach a decision that could lead to a ban on imports of wildlife, including fish, from Mexico. Interior must come to a decision by May 19 and provide a “substantive response” describing why it reached that decision 15 days later.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed at the Court of International Trade by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which demanded the U.S. rule on Mexico's alleged failure to stop illegal fishing of and trade in endangered totoaba, an "imperiled fish," which also endangers the vaquita porpoise. Under the settlement announced in Judge Gary Katzmann's April 7 order, Interior must make a decision under the Pelly Amendment by certifying or not certifying that Mexico is engaging in trade that diminishes the effectiveness of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Center for Biological Diversity v. Deb Haaland, CIT # 22-00339).

Under the Pelly Amendment, when the Interior secretary finds foreign nationals are engaging in such trade, the secretary "shall certify such fact to the President," after which the president can ban imports of certain goods, including wildlife products, from the offending country. The three conservation groups filed a petition in 2014 seeking to certify Mexico for diminishing the CITES' effectiveness for the trade of totoaba.

The conservation groups did not receive a formal response until 2017, when the Fish and Wildlife Service said it expected to conclude its investigation into the Pelly petition within the next four or five months. The groups filed suit at U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2020 over the administration’s "unreasonable delay." The U.S. moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that CIT was the proper place of jurisdiction, and the conservation groups voluntarily dismissed the matter and filed suit at the trade court (see 2212140021).