Saving Seafood

Law

Conservative Justices Appear Skeptical of Agencies’ Regulatory Power

January 18, 2024 — Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to limit or even overturn a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies, threatening regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety.

Each side warned of devastating consequences should it lose, underscoring how the court’s decision in a highly technical case could reverberate across wide swaths of American life.

Overruling the precedent, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices, would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.”

But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh responded that there were in fact “shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in, whether it’s communications law or securities law or competition law or environmental law.”

Read the full article at The New York Times

US Supreme Court appears split over US agency powers in fishing dispute

January 17, 2024 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared divided over a bid to further limit the regulatory powers of federal agencies in a dispute involving a government-run program to monitor for overfishing of herring off New England’s coast.

The justices heard arguments in appeals by two fishing companies of lower court rulings allowing the National Marine Fisheries Service to require commercial fishermen to help fund the program. The companies – led by New Jersey-based Loper Bright Enterprises and Rhode Island-based Relentless Inc – have argued that Congress did not authorize the agency, part of the U.S. Commerce Department, to establish the program.

The companies have asked the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, to rein in or overturn a precedent established in 1984 that calls for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation of U.S. laws deemed to be ambiguous, a doctrine called “Chevron deference.”

The questions posed by the justices did not reveal a clear majority willing to overturn the precedent. Some of the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the doctrine’s continuing force. Others signaled hesitation about reversing it. The court’s liberal justices appeared ready to preserve the doctrine’s deference to the expertise of agencies.

Read the full article at Reuters 

Case brought to Supreme Court by herring fishermen may gut federal rulemaking power

January 17, 2024 –– The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case today, brought by fishing interests who are friends of Saving Seafood, which could upend the Chevron doctrine. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, Sec. of Comm. (22-451) and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce (22-1219).

From National Public Radio:

Judges are supposed to follow a two-step procedure. First, they’re supposed to ask whether the law is clear when someone challenges a federal rule. Then, if the law is not clear, if there’s an ambiguity, the court is supposed to defer to the agency interpretation if it’s reasonable.

In practice, that’s meant that courts often defer to people inside federal agencies who are experts on things like pollution, banking and food safety.

But all of it could be upended by a conservative supermajority on the court at the request of an unlikely set of plaintiffs: a group of herring fishermen based in Cape May, N.J.

One of them is Bill Bright, a first-generation fisherman whose family has followed him to the sea.

“My boys are working on the boats,” Bright said. “And my daughters, we have a shoreside business and they run that. So we’re all, the whole family is, in the seafood business 100%.”

Bright said he welcomes regulations to keep the herring population strong in the Northeastern United States. But he said the fisheries service went too far when the government mandated that vessel owners like him had to pay for observers on the boats to make sure they’re following the rules. 

Paul Clement, a former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, has argued more than 100 times before the Supreme Court. He represents the herring fishermen.

“Can’t think of a better way to mark the 40th anniversary of the Chevron decision than with an overruling,” Clement said. “In our view, this really has gotten out of control.”

He said the current system means Congress never has to weigh in and reach a compromise on the toughest policy questions, because one side or the other can just wait for a change in the executive branch every four or eight years, and the rules will swing back and forth based on the views of the political party in power.

“I think it’s really as simple as this: which is when the statute is ambiguous, and the tie has to go to someone, we think the tie should go to the citizen and not the government,” Clement added. “And one of the many problems with the Chevron rule is it basically says that when the statutory question is close, the tie goes to the government, and that just doesn’t make any sense to us.”

Read the full story at NPR

Supreme Court hears fishermen’s challenge that could upend agency powers

January 18, 2024 — Arguing on behalf of commercial fishermen from New Jersey and Rhode Island, lawyers with conservative legal activist groups made their case before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday for reversing a 40-year precedent, and sharply cutting back the regulatory powers of federal agencies.

During a three and a half-hour hearing, the court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the government’s arguments in two related cases – dubbed Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Department of Commerce – brought on behalf of herring fishermen in Rhode Island and Cape May, N.J.

The fishermen challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service rule that required them to carry onboard observers to monitor fishing, and pay costs for the observers contracted by NMFS, at up to $700 a day.

The cases hinge on the so-called “Chevron deference,” a landmark ruling in federal administrative law dating back to a 1984 dispute between the oil giant and environmental activists of the Natural Resources Defense Council. In that Supreme Court decision, justices ruled that the courts should “defer” to executive agencies’  reasonable interpretations of federal statutes.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

 

‘How do we know where the line is?’ Supreme Court considers ‘chevron’ principle in major case

January 17 2024 — The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled over whether to fiddle with − or even overturn − a 40-year-old precedent that has guided how federal agencies protect the environment, workers, consumers and more.

“How do we know where the line is?” Justice Clarence Thomas asked in opening more than three and a half hours of debate over how much deference courts should give federal agencies when the law is unclear.

While the cases before the court on Wednesday were brought by herring fishermen who objected to being forced to pay for federal inspections of their catch, the court’s decision could undo decades of rules and procedures involving land use, the stock market, and on-the-job safety.

Read the full article at USA Today

A little fish at the Supreme Court could take a big bite out of regulatory power

January 16, 2024 — Business and conservative interest groups that want to limit the power of federal regulators think they have a winner in the Atlantic herring and the boats that sweep the modest fish into their holds by the millions.

In a Supreme Court term increasingly dominated by cases related to former President Donald Trump, the justices are about to take up lower profile but vitally important cases that could rein in a wide range of government regulations affecting the environment, workplace standards, consumer protections and public health.

In cases being argued Wednesday, lawyers for the fishermen are asking the court to overturn a 40-year-old decision that is among the most frequently cited high court cases in support of regulatory power. Lower courts used the decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for monitors who track their fish intake. A group of commercial fishermen appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Read the full article at the Associated Press

This humble fish may help the Supreme Court weaken the ‘administrative state’

January 16, 2024 — A slender, silvery fish, sold for bait and canned as sardines, has the potential to play an outsize role in weakening the power of federal agencies to regulate vast areas of American life — overturning long-standing Supreme Court precedent in the process.

But the case before the high court this week is not really about the herring.

For 40 years, courts have generally deferred to the judgment of federal agencies when it comes to turning laws passed by Congress into detailed regulations designed to protect the environment, consumers and the workplace.

They did so because of the precedent set in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal agency officials charged with administering ambiguous federal laws.

But as the court has moved to the right in recent years, the conservative majority has been less likely to invoke that ruling, which outside groups have long seen as giving unaccountable bureaucrats too much power.

Now the high court is reviewing a pair of challenges to federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors — cases that could lead to the demise of Chevron, much as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022 overturned the historic Roe v. Wade ruling and eliminated the nationwide right to abortion.

Read the full article at the Washington Post

Supreme Court will consider overruling landmark Chevron deference decision in a fishy case

January 13, 2024 — The U.S. Supreme Court is about to take up one of the biggest cases of the term not involving former President Donald Trump. On Jan. 17, the justices will consider whether they should overrule a landmark 1984 decision often requiring courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

The precedent is Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been under fire from conservatives and some members of the court for years, and hasn’t been relied on by the Supreme Court itself since at least 2016.

But lower courts still must apply it, and so-called Chevron deference affects vast swaths of the regulated U.S. economy. The two cases up for review involve a relatively small segment of the economy—herring fishing off the Atlantic coast.

When the court granted review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it made clear in orders that it was only taking up the question of whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified. It did not accept review of the underlying statutory question affecting herring fishing—whether a federal agency correctly interpreted a statute to require fishers to pay the cost of monitors who ride their boats on roughly half of their outings.

“The statutory-interpretation issue is actually pretty fun,” says Christopher J. Walker, a law professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on federal administrative law. “It’s about fishing and whether fishing boats have to pay for monitors on the boat. But it also doesn’t really matter much to the case because the case is squarely presenting the question of should the court overrule Chevron deference, or should it at least accept that some new limitation that silence in the statute does not mean that Chevron deference is available.”

Read the full article at ABAJournal 

Federal lawsuit targets Louisiana coastal restoration project

January 13, 2024 — A pair of Louisiana seafood processors joined conservationists and a local resident Thursday to file a federal complaint against the ambitious Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project, a $2.9 billion effort to combat the state’s trend of coastal land loss.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim the project “will have serious, permanent, adverse impacts on [the basin’s] resources,” including its species diversity, its economy and human health.

They say that in authorizing the project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated administrative procedures and the National Environmental Policy Review Act (NEPA), while federal agencies conducting environmental reviews violated the Endangered Species Act.

The project, which is primarily funded with $2.26 billion from Natural Resource Damage Assessment funds from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement, broke ground in August 2023. A joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, it will feature a controlled gate structure through the river’s existing levee connected to a new, approximately 2-mile manmade channel with an outfall structure in the basin.

Read the full article at the Courthouse News Service

A Supreme Court ruling on fishing for herring could sharply curb federal regulatory power

January 11, 2024 — Fisheries regulation might seem to be unusual grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court to shift power away from federal agencies. But that is what the court seems poised to do in the combined cases of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. vs. Department of Commerce. The cases are scheduled for oral argument in tandem on Jan. 17, 2024.

The question at the core of both cases is whether the secretary of commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service and following the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, can require commercial fishers to pay for onboard observers whom they are required to take on some fishing voyages. In both cases, the plaintiffs assert that the Commerce Department has exceeded its legal authority. That claim turns on how much deference the court should give the agency’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Specifically, plaintiffs are challenging a nearly 40-year-old doctrine of federal administrative law, known as Chevron deference for the 1984 case in which it was set forth. This tenet provides that when a federal statute is silent or ambiguous about a particular regulatory issue, courts defer to the implementing agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law.

In other words, if the agency and federal courts disagree about the “best” interpretation of a federal law, the courts cannot force the agency to accept their version of what the statute means or allows, so long as the agency’s own interpretation is reasonable.

Read the full article at the Conservation