March 30, 2021 — It sounds as if Supreme Court Justice John Roberts thinks the practice of presidents abusing the Antiquities Act, to accomplish what they never could in the usual three-corner offense of American democracy, has gotten old.
Last week, the Supreme Court rejected a petition, with the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association as lead plaintiff, that challenged then President Barack Obama’s legal use of the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of Massachusetts.
Viewed through the narrowest of prisms, the Supreme Court no-call was a victory for marine conservationists and another blow to the commercial fishing industry. But viewed with a wider lens, it could also serve as the starting gun for even more challenges to the presidential use of the Antiquities Act to designate monuments and landmarks when all other political measures fail.
The chief justice, according to a Bloomberg Law story, questioned how much scope presidents actually should have under the law “that was intended to protect prehistoric Indigenous artifacts and the smallest area compatible with protection.
“Somewhere along the line, however, this restriction has ceased to pose any meaningful restraint,” Roberts wrote. “A statute permitting the president in his sole discretion to designate monuments ‘landmarks,’ ‘structures,’ and ‘objects’ — along with the smallest area of land compatible with their management — has been transformed into a power without any discernible limit to set aside vast and amorphous expanses of terrain above and below the sea.”
Court watchers and the legal community were agog. This, they said, almost never happens. Color us agog, too.
“Fishing groups opposed to the Northeast canyons monument are disappointed the court refused to hear the case,” the Bloomberg Law story stated, adding though that Roberts’ statement was being viewed by the industry (well, its lawyers) as a silver lining.
“It’s a big deal for the chief to file a statement like that,” Jonathan Wood, senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented the fishing interests. “I read it basically inviting similar cases. It’s trying to send a signal to the Supreme Court bar of, ‘This is an issue I’m interested in. Start bringing me the cases’.”
We here at FishOn have never been to the Supreme Court bar, but we too would like them to start bringing us some cases. Start with the Jameson and we’ll work our way around the dial.