## Facts

- The United States Coast Guard seized the fishing vessel **F/V Marshalls 201** for allegedly fishing unlawfully within the **exclusive economic zone (EEZ)** surrounding **Baker and Howland Islands**.
- In response to the enforcement action, the **F/V Marshalls 201 moved to dismiss**.
- The vessel argued that **Baker and Howland Islands are “rocks”** under the **United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)** and therefore **cannot generate an EEZ** because they do not have an ongoing human community living on either island.
- The United States responded that **UNCLOS is not binding on the United States** in this context.
- The United States further argued that Baker and Howland are properly treated as **“islands” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act**, pointing to the fact that the islands have **sometimes had human inhabitants for business purposes**.

## Issues

1. Whether Baker and Howland Islands could be treated as features that generate an EEZ for purposes of U.S. fisheries enforcement, despite the vessel’s argument that the islands are UNCLOS “rocks” lacking an ongoing human community.
2. Whether UNCLOS supplied a controlling limit on U.S. enforcement jurisdiction in this case, or whether domestic law (including the Magnuson-Stevens Act) governed the EEZ determination for Baker and Howland Islands.

## Decision

- The court addressed the vessel’s **motion to dismiss** challenging U.S. EEZ enforcement around Baker and Howland Islands based on an UNCLOS “rocks” theory.
- Publicly accessible summaries of this unpublished decision (without the opinion text) describe the parties’ positions on **UNCLOS’s nonbinding status** and the **Magnuson-Stevens “island” characterization**, but do not provide the court’s full written reasoning or the motion’s final disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant in a U.S. fisheries enforcement case may challenge EEZ-based jurisdiction by arguing that a maritime feature is a **non-EEZ-generating “rock”** under **UNCLOS Article 121(3)**.
- The United States may respond that **UNCLOS does not, by itself, bind U.S. courts** absent controlling domestic adoption, and that U.S. enforcement turns on **domestic statutes and related U.S. law** governing fisheries jurisdiction.
- For U.S. fisheries enforcement near U.S.-claimed island possessions, disputes may focus on whether the feature qualifies as an **“island”** for purposes of U.S. fisheries statutes and how evidence of **human presence or economic activity** bears on that classification.

## Conclusion

United States v. F/V Marshalls 201 involved a Coast Guard seizure for alleged illegal fishing within the EEZ around Baker and Howland Islands and a motion to dismiss arguing those islands are UNCLOS “rocks” that cannot generate an EEZ; the United States countered that UNCLOS was not binding and that the islands qualify as “islands” under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, though the opinion’s full holding is not available from the accessible sources provided here.


United States v. F/V Marshalls 201, 2008 WL 2018299 (2008)