Second step is to write a letter pointint out no killi is on CITES because they understood that this is not protection when it comes to killies, for banning movement of these fish would destroy the only mechanism that currently keeps them alive outside of their natural habitats and in some cases they no longer exists in their natural habitat.
So, enacting new legislation to save these fish would in fact wipe the species out from the face of the earth if these laws came back. That's the unintended consequence of this legislation.
It's not uncommon for a law to cause the opposite of it's intent to become true. English Common Law, the basis of most legal frameworks in the world has a clause in it that things can't just be legal they have to fair; it was enacted for this exact principle where the effect of a government action was to cause the opposite of the intention as it would be in this case if the law in Brazil reverts to prohibition of these species - it would almost certainly doom many of them to extinction with the stroke of a pen.
It might be easier to do this in a regional federal court than the supreme court. Ideally the law would be changed to reflect contemporaneous species maintenance best practices and work to aid them not inhibit their success saving Brazilian fishes.
These needs to be a coupe of lawyers in Brazil that draft this up and run with it, all I Can do is paint broad stokes. Now you have to get those in charge of this stuff there to understand. They're trying to help but don't know yet killies are handled differently than other species when it comes to species maintenance and preservation.