Federal Judge Reinstates Fishing Ban in Vast Pacific Marine Sanctuary, Blocking Trump-Era Order

HONOLULU – A federal judge has ordered an immediate halt to commercial fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, one of the world’s largest and most ecologically sensitive marine protected areas. The ruling sides with environmental groups that challenged a Trump-era executive order that had reopened the sanctuary to industrial fishing.

The decision, issued late last week by a U.S. District Court judge in Hawaii, grants a preliminary injunction that reinstates a full ban on commercial fishing within the monument’s boundaries while a lawsuit proceeds. The ruling marks a significant victory for conservation advocates and serves as a critical legal test of a president's authority to alter or diminish national monuments established by previous administrations.

The legal battle centers on a 2020 proclamation by then-President Donald Trump, which lifted fishing restrictions that had been in place for years. Environmental law firm Earthjustice, representing several conservation and cultural groups, filed the lawsuit, arguing that the president had overstepped his authority under the U.S. Antiquities Act of 1906.

A Sanctuary Under Threat

Established by President George W. Bush in 2009 and significantly expanded by President Barack Obama in 2014, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) encompasses over 495,000 square miles of ocean surrounding U.S. territories in the central Pacific. The area is a haven for fragile ecosystems, including pristine coral reefs, deep-sea mountains known as seamounts, and a rich diversity of marine life.

The monument provides a critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, including green sea turtles, sharks, whales, and numerous seabirds. Its near-pristine condition makes it an invaluable living laboratory for scientists studying the impacts of climate change on ocean ecosystems.

The Obama-era expansion prohibited commercial fishing and other resource extraction activities, a move celebrated by conservationists but opposed by some in the commercial fishing industry. The Trump administration argued that the restrictions imposed an undue economic burden on U.S. fishing fleets and that allowing fishing would not compromise the monument's ecological integrity.

The Legal Arguments and Ruling

In their lawsuit, Earthjustice argued that the Antiquities Act grants presidents the power to create national monuments but does not grant them the authority to unilaterally revoke or significantly shrink them. They contended that only an act of Congress can alter the protections of a designated monument.

The court’s decision to grant an injunction indicates that the judge believes the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. "This ruling affirms that our nation’s marine monuments are a promise for the future, not a political bargaining chip," said David Henkin, an attorney for Earthjustice, in a statement following the decision. "These pristine waters are a global treasure, and industrial fishing gear has no place here."

Supporters of the fishing industry, including the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, had previously backed the Trump order. They argued that U.S. longline tuna fishing boats operate sustainably and that excluding them from these waters cedes a competitive advantage to foreign fleets operating just outside the monument's boundaries. They also raised concerns about the economic impact on Hawaii-based fishing operations.

What Happens Next?

The preliminary injunction means the fishing ban is effective immediately but is not the final word in the case. The lawsuit will continue, with both sides presenting further arguments before a final judgment is rendered. The ruling could be appealed to a higher court.

This case is being closely watched as it holds significant implications for the future of all U.S. national monuments, both on land and at sea. It directly addresses the unsettled legal question of whether a president can undo the conservation legacies of their predecessors without congressional approval. The outcome will likely set a powerful precedent for the management and protection of America's most treasured natural and cultural sites.

The Biden administration, which has prioritized environmental protection and the restoration of national monuments, has not formally commented on the ongoing litigation but has previously taken steps to reverse other Trump-era environmental rollbacks.