Opinion ID: 788121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The MMPA

Text: 40 Unlike the ESA, the MMPA contains no explicit provision granting standing to enforce its duties. The MMPA imposes a moratorium on taking a marine mammal without a permit, and prohibits incidental, but not intentional takes without a letter of authorization. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(51)(1). The statute defines [to] take as [to] harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal, or to attempt to do any of these things. Id. § 1362(13). The MMPA explicitly grants standing to seek judicial review to any permit applicant, and to a party opposed to such a permit. Id. § 1374(d)(6). But the statute says nothing about the standing of a would-be party, such as the Cetaceans, who seek to compel someone to apply for a letter of authorization, or for a permit. 41 Relying on Section 10(a) of the APA, as well as Data Processing and Clarke, we have held that affected persons with conservationist, aesthetic, recreational, or economic interests in the protection of marine mammals have standing to seek to compel someone to apply for a permit under the MMPA. Sausalito, slip op. at 14728, 2004 WL 2348385 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 702; Clarke, 479 U.S. at 399, 107 S.Ct. 750). But, as discussed above, Section 10(a) of the APA does not define person to include animals. No court has ever held that an animal-even a marine mammal whose protection is at stake-has standing to sue in its own name to require that a party seek a permit or letter of authorization under the MMPA. See Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc., 836 F.Supp. at 49 (rejecting such a suit). Absent a clear from Congress in either the MMPA or the APA, we hold that animals do not have standing to enforce the permit requirement of the MMPA.