Saving Seafood

Nantucket group appeals to Supreme Court to end offshore wind projects and protect endangered whales

September 30, 2024 — A group of Nantucket, Massachusetts, residents are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court in their challenge to the industrialization of parts of the Atlantic Ocean, where they say offshore wind farms – developed with the blessing of the federal government – are putting an endangered whale species at risk.

The group, Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, argues in its petition to the high court that “the federal government has lost sight of its statutory obligations to conserve endangered species that will be directly affected by the construction of thousands of wind turbines in the Atlantic Ocean.”

They argue that the federal agencies that authorized the leasing of the water area to wind turbine companies excluded certain data in their analysis to the benefit of offshore wind development.

“Despite the agencies’ explicit statutory duty to consider all ‘best information available,’ regarding the impacts its actions might have on an endangered or threatened species and those habitats, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), did not consider the cumulative impacts of other planned projects when they authorized and issued permits to construct the Vineyard Wind 1 Project.”

Read the full article at Fox News

DOJ argues federal law allows NOAA to charge fishermen for monitors

September 19, 2024 — Out-of-pocket payments made by fishermen to federal monitors who accompany them at sea is comparable to the costs fishermen incur when they purchase new gear or equipment to comply with any other other regulations, government lawyers argue in a legal brief filed Wednesday in federal appeals court.

The brief in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, is the government’s latest volley in what has become a landmark case pitting NOAA Fisheries against a group of New Jersey herring fishermen after the Supreme Court in June rolled back a long-standing legal doctrine that gave deference to agencies like NOAA in disputes over a regulation’s interpretation.

The filing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit argues that all NOAA Fisheries regulations require industry compliance and that sometimes compliance “imposes economic costs on vessels.”

Read the full article at E&E News

Fishermen ask court to spike NOAA onboard observer program

September 18, 2024 — Two New Jersey fishermen who convinced the Supreme Court in June to toss out the Chevron doctrine, which had long buttressed federal regulatory muscle are asking an appeals court to effectively get industry-paid NOAA Fisheries monitors off their boats.

In arguments set for Nov. 4, plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises Inc. v. Gina Raimondo will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to make a final ruling on the industry-funded monitoring program that was adopted by NOAA in 2020 and ceased in April 2023.

“I think we’re all hopeful that the circuit court will get to the right answer,” Ryan Mulvey, an attorney with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and plaintiffs’ counsel, said in an interview Monday. “This entire case has been about fighting for our fishermen and small family businesses to get rid of what we thought was a really onerous regulation.”

Read the full article at E&E News

Supreme Court to hear major case on limiting the power of federal government, a long-term goal of legal conservatives

May 2, 2023 — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to reconsider long held precedent and decide whether to significantly scale back on the power of federal agencies in a case that can impact how the government addresses everything from climate change to public health to immigration.

Conservative justices have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American businesses and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal power but the new case would allow them to take a much broader stride.

The justices announced they would take up an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

Their action means they will reconsider a 1984 case – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law.

Read the full story at CNN

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to NOAA Requirement that Vessels Pay Monitoring Fees

May 1, 2023 — The following was released by Cause of Action Institute:

The Supreme Court announced today it will take up the case of New Jersey fishermen who are challenging the federal government’s attempt to unlawfully force them to pay monitoring fees without congressional approval—a case that gives the Court an opportunity to review and overrule the Chevron deference precedent. Critically, the Court granted only on Question Presented 2, which means it will directly address the future of Chevron.

The justices will review Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The fishermen, represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement and lawyers from Cause of Action Institute, petitioned the Court in November to overrule a funding scheme that would force them to hand over 20 percent of their pay to third-party at-sea monitors they must bring on their boats—a mandate that Congress never approved by statute.

Amicus briefs in support of the fishermen’s case were filed by 38 organizations and individuals, including one signed by 18 state attorneys general.

“The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct one of the most consequential judicial errors in a generation. Chevron deference has proven corrosive to the American system of checks and balances and directly contributed to an unaccountable executive branch, overbearing bureaucracy, and runaway regulation,” Cause of Action Institute counsel Ryan Mulvey said.

“These fishing families and all those seemingly living at the mercy of Washington deserve better,” he said. “Cause of Action Institute has always fought on behalf of vulnerable Americans, and we’re hopeful this case will provide the vehicle to end Chevron deference.”

“We are delighted that the Court took this case not only to potentially deliver justice to these fishermen, but also to reconsider a doctrine that has enabled the widespread expansion of unchecked executive authority. We look forward to our day in court,” Clement said.

“We are grateful to the Supreme Court for taking our case. Our way of life is in the hands of these justices, and we hope they will keep our families and our community in mind as they weigh their decision,” said Bill Bright, a New Jersey fisherman and plaintiff in the case.

Cause of Action Institute has compiled background information here, including links to filings, amicus briefs, and a short video featuring interviews with the NJ fishermen.

Supreme Court move could spell doom for power of federal regulators

May 1, 2023 — A legal doctrine long despised by conservatives for giving federal regulators wide-ranging power is making yet another march to the gallows at the Supreme Court.

The high court announced Monday that it is taking up a case squarely aimed at killing off the nearly-four-decade-old precedent that has come to be known as Chevron deference: the principle that courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous provisions in congressional statutes and judges should refrain from crafting their own reading of the laws.

Overturning the doctrine would have major implications for the Biden administration’s climate agenda. It would complicate the administration’s efforts to tackle major issues such as climate change via regulation, including possibly derailing the Environmental Protection Agency’s push to mitigate carbon emissions from the electricity and transportation sectors — the two highest polluting industries in the United States.

The Chevron doctrine has “been in a coma for a while, so we’ll see whether they want to revive it or take it off life support,” said David Doniger, who in 1984 argued that case before the Supreme Court for the NRDC.

Read the full story at Politico

Justices to consider case involving fishing boat monitor pay

May 1, 2023 — The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the subject of who pays for workers who gather valuable data aboard commercial fishing boats.

Justices announced Monday that they will take the case, which stems from a lawsuit by a group of fishermen who want to stop the federal government from making them pay for the workers. The workers are tasked with collecting data on board fishing vessels to help inform rules and regulations.

The fishermen involved in the lawsuit harvest Atlantic herring, which is a major fishery off the East Coast that supplies both food and bait. Lead plaintiff Loper Bright Enterprises of New Jersey and other fishing groups have said federal rules unfairly require them to pay hundreds of dollars per day to contractors.

“Our way of life is in the hands of these justices, and we hope they will keep our families and our community in mind as they weigh their decision,” said Bill Bright, a New Jersey fisherman and plaintiff in the case.

Read the full story at AP News

Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Curtail Agency Power to Regulate Business

May 1, 2023 — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could make it easier to curtail the power of administrative agencies, a long-running goal of the conservative legal movement that could have far-reaching implications for how American society imposes rules on businesses.

In a terse order, the court said it would hear a case that seeks to limit or overturn a unanimous 1984 precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. According to the decision, if part of the law Congress wrote empowering a regulatory agency is ambiguous but the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, judges should defer to it.

At issue in the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, is a law that requires fishing vessels to pay for monitors who ensure that they comply with regulations meant to prevent overfishing. The National Marine Fisheries Service established the rule, and a group of companies has challenged whether the agency had the authority to do so.

When the Supreme Court decides on the case, most likely in its next term, the outcome could have implications that go beyond fisheries.

Read the full story at the New York Times

N.C. decides not to appeal to Supreme Court for review in lawsuit over marine fisheries regulations

October 14, 2022 — Glenn Skinner, executive director of the N.C. Fisheries Association, a trade and lobbying group for North Carolina commercial fishermen, said Thursday he was “surprised and a little confused” by the state’s decision this week not to appeal to the state Supreme Court to reverse a September Appeals Court ruling that allows the state to be sued for alleged failure to protect North Carolina’s fisheries.

“We don’t what we’re going to do right now,” Skinner said. “We’re sort of sitting here scratching our heads.”

The N.C. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in September that the state chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, a recreational fishermen’s group that bills itself as an advocate for “sound management of public trust marine and estuarine resources,” could sue the state, rejecting the state’s claim of sovereign immunity.

Read the full article at Carteret County News-Times

Supreme Court won’t hear fishermen case against ocean monument

March 23, 2021 — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a fishing group that challenged the creation of a large federally protected area in the Atlantic Ocean.

The group sued to try to get rid of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which became the first national ocean monument in the Atlantic when President Barack Obama created it in 2016. The area consists of 5,000 square miles off New England, and it is home to fragile deep-sea corals.

The fishermen sued in federal court saying the establishment of a protected zone where they have historically fished for lobsters and crabs could hurt their livelihoods. Federal district and appellate courts ruled that the monument was created appropriately by Obama, who used the Antiquities Act to establish it.

The high court denied a request to take a look at the case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the creation of a national monument was “of no small consequence,” but the petitioners did not meet the criteria to bring it before the Supreme Court.

Roberts also wrote that the court has never considered how such a large monument can be justified under the Antiquities Act, which President Theodore Roosevelt created more than a century ago to preserve artifacts such as Native American ruins. Roberts wrote it’s possible the court could be presented a better opportunity to consider that issue in the future.

Read the full story at the Associated Press