## Facts

- Congress enacted the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act to deter large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas, which indiscriminately catches marine life.
- The statute directs the Secretary of Commerce to “identify” nations whose vessels are believed to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing; after identification, the President consults with the foreign nation and may impose import sanctions if consultations are not “satisfactorily concluded.”
- In prior litigation, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered the Secretary to identify Italy based on unlawful large-scale driftnet fishing by Italian vessels.
- Following identification, the United States conducted consultations with Italy, and Italy agreed to terminate large-scale driftnet fishing.
- In 1997, the Secretary certified that Italy had terminated large-scale driftnet fishing.
- The Humane Society later alleged that Italian vessels continued illegal driftnet fishing and sought to compel sanctions and to undo the 1997 certification.

## Issues

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred suit against the President and executive officials, or whether the statute’s jurisdictional grant to the CIT implied a waiver.
2. Whether a court could issue mandamus compelling the President to impose import sanctions under the statute.
3. Whether the Secretary’s 1997 certification that Italy had terminated large-scale driftnet fishing was arbitrary and capricious given evidence of continued violations.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s judgment.
- The court held that sovereign immunity did not bar the action because the statute’s grant of jurisdiction to the CIT carried a coextensive waiver for actions under the Act.
- The court held mandamus could not issue against the President because the determination whether consultations were “satisfactorily concluded” involved broad presidential discretion.
- The court held the Secretary’s 1997 certification was not arbitrary and capricious; evidence supported a conclusion of substantial implementation and adequate assurances despite some individual violations.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress grants a specialized court jurisdiction to hear actions under a statute, that grant may imply a waiver of sovereign immunity coextensive with the jurisdiction conferred.
- Mandamus is unavailable to compel action that is discretionary; it lies only to enforce a clear, ministerial, nondiscretionary duty.
- Executive determinations intertwined with diplomacy and foreign-affairs judgments (such as whether consultations are “satisfactorily concluded” and whether to impose sanctions) receive strong judicial deference.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, an agency certification may be upheld where the record supports a rational finding of substantial compliance and credible assurances, even if some violations persist.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit permitted the suit to proceed under an implied sovereign-immunity waiver but refused to compel presidential sanctions because the statute vested the President with discretionary judgment, and it upheld Commerce’s certification as a reasoned decision supported by the record under arbitrary-and-capricious review.


Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Clinton, 236 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001)