Filed Date: May 4, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the Trump Administration’s efforts to allow commercial fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, rescinding protections established in 2016 under the Antiquities Act.
On May 4, 2026, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), Center for Biological Diversity, and a marine naturalist filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Represented by attorneys of the NRDC and CLF, Plaintiffs sued President Donald J. Trump, federal officials, and agencies responsible for implementing the challenged actions. Plaintiffs alleged that President Trump’s February 2026 proclamation reopening the Monument to commercial fishing exceeded the President’s constitutional and statutory authority because the Antiquities Act does not authorize them to revoke monument protections established by their predecessors. Plaintiffs further alleged that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Rescission Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, vacatur of the Rescission Rule, injunctive relief preventing implementation of the 2026 proclamation, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg.
The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was established in 2016 to protect deep-sea canyons, seamounts, and marine ecosystems located in federal waters off the coast of New England. Plaintiffs alleged that President Trump’s February 2026 proclamation removed protections that prohibited commercial fishing within the Monument and directed federal agencies to rescind implementing regulations. According to Plaintiffs, neither the Constitution nor the Antiquities Act grants the President authority to dismantle or reduce protections afforded to an existing national monument, an authority that Plaintiffs contend belongs exclusively to Congress under the separation-of-powers doctrine.
Plaintiffs also challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service implementing the Rescission Rule. They alleged that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision, and failed to comply with procedural and environmental review requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking imposed by the APA, NEPA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
As of June 2026, no substantive rulings had been issued, and the case remained ongoing.
Summary Authors
Niam Vora (6/10/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73292266/parties/conservation-law-foundation-v-trump/
Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)
Desormeau, Katherine K. (District of Columbia)
Flanagan, Devon Lea (District of Columbia)
Friedmann, Jennifer Alida (District of Columbia)
Fross, Chloe (District of Columbia)
Desormeau, Katherine K. (District of Columbia)
Flanagan, Devon Lea (District of Columbia)
Friedmann, Jennifer Alida (District of Columbia)
Fross, Chloe (District of Columbia)
Fuller, Erica A. (District of Columbia)
Iwata, Jacqueline M (District of Columbia)
Monsell, Kristen (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73292266/conservation-law-foundation-v-trump/
Last updated July 1, 2026, 3:24 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 4, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Environmental advocacy organizations and a marine conservation advocate are challenging the reopening of a federally protected marine national monument to commercial fishing.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States
United States Department of Commerce
United States Department of the Interior
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-01528
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Environmental Justice and Resources:
Environmental Impact Statements
Case Summary of Conservation Law Foundation v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48136/ (last updated 6/10/2026).