Saving Seafood

McCarthy calls on Supreme Court to ‘rein in’ administrative state in upcoming case

July 25, 2023 — Republicans in Congress including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (CA) backed amicus briefs Monday calling on the Supreme Court to unwind a landmark precedent that gives the federal government broad authority to interpret laws.

In the upcoming high court term, the justices will weigh a case known as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimondo, which asks the justices to pare back the 1984 high court Chevron deference, which tells courts to defer to agency’s interpretations of statutes when the language written in them is ambiguous or vague.

“As part of our Commitment to America, House Republicans pledged to hold Washington accountable. The Chevron framework makes it easier for unelected bureaucrats to weaponize federal regulations against the American people. The Court should rein in the power of unelected bureaucrats and restore the separation of powers,” the House speaker said in a statement.

McCarthy backed the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group brief it filed at the high court in the Raimondo case, which centers on four New Jersey fishing companies asking the justices whether the National Marine Fisheries Service can force fishing vessels to pay the salaries of federal observers, which costs roughly 20% of company revenues.

Read the full article at the  Washington Examiner

Supreme Court urged to blunt power of federal regulators

July 19, 2023 — The Supreme Court is being asked to overturn a decades-old law giving federal regulators wide-ranging powers as it weighs a legal challenge by New Jersey commercial fishermen over new monitoring rules.

The high court is considering a lawsuit filed in 2020 by plaintiff Loper Bright Enterprises of New Jersey, challenging a rule requiring the industry to fund monitors to go out on commercial fishing vessels to collect data to craft new regulations. The fishermen argue the rules will force them to pay more than $700 per day to contractors, or about 20% of their pay.

But plaintiffs in the case say the dispute over federal monitors also provides an opportunity for the high court to blunt the powers of federal agencies by overturning the so-called Chevron deference.

“It’s a classic David versus Goliath story,” said Ryan Mulvey, an attorney with Cause of Action Institute representing commercial fishermen. “Chevron deference tips the scales of justice towards powerful federal agencies and away from citizens like the fishermen who are seeing their livelihoods threatened by a bureaucracy run amok.”

Read the full article at The Center Square

Rhode Island fishermen ask Supreme Court to hear challenge to observer fees

June 20, 2023 — Encouraged by New Jersey herring fishermen’s application to the U.S. Supreme Court, lawyers for Rhode Island captains are likewise asking the high court to consider what they say is “an unconstitutional rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitoring of their herring catch.”

The legal activist group New Civil Liberties Alliance petitioned the court June 14 for a “writ of certiorari” in its case representing Point Judith, R.I. companies Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc. and Seafreeze Fleet LLC.

Their case challenges a 2020 rule imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that required vessel operators to pay for observers on their vessels at sea, at a cost that owners say can exceed $700 daily and sometimes exceed the money they make from landing low-priced herring.

The Supreme Court could soon hear arguments in a case called Loper Bright, named for one of several Cape May, N.J. fishing companies fighting the observer requirement that lost their initial case in court but appealed. NOAA waived the rule earlier this year as it ran short of money to administer the program. But fishermen want to make sure the observer requirement is not renewed, and conservative advocacy groups see their cause as a chance to overturn a long-standing precedent called the “Chevron deference.”

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Fishermen ask US Supreme Court to consider second challenge to NOAA at-sea monitoring rule

June 15, 2023 — A nonprofit civil rights group representing Atlantic herring fishermen wants to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court as part of a growing movement to limit NOAA Fisheries’ rulemaking authority.

In 2020, NOAA Fisheries implemented a new rule requiring fishermen to pay for human at-sea monitors aboard their vessels. While the agency claimed the monitors are necessary to ensure compliance, fishermen balked at the cost, which they claim can be more than USD 700 (EUR 640) per day. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), some of the fishermen sued the government to overturn the regulation.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Commercial Fishermen Urge Supreme Court to Reel In Agency Authority

June 8, 2023 — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The high court’s ruling could have important implications on federal officials’ discretion to regulate in many facets of American life.

Background and Chevron

When Congress delegates regulatory functions to administrative agencies, the delegating statute governs the agency’s ability to act. That is, the statute itself sets the agency’s boundaries and an agency may not regulate or take actions outside the scope of its delegated authority. But what happens when an agency takes actions that exceed the scope of its delegated authority? Or what happens when it is unclear from the statute whether an agency even has authority? For more than 200 years, the federal judiciary has served as a critical “check” on the powers and actions of the executive and legislative branches of government.

“Chevron deference” has become one of the most well-known precedents in administrative law. Arising from the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., it is based on the principle that an agency, with its expertise, is better positioned than a judge to know a statute’s meaning and, thus, it requires judges to defer to “reasonable” interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Read the full article at the National Law Review

This Supreme Court case could restore oversight to bureaucratic rulemaking

June 8, 2023 — Every year, new rules and regulations are made and interpreted by the federal agencies that make up the American regulatory state. These rules and regulations fill some 74,000 pages of the Federal Register and serve as a hidden tax on the American people who pay for regulations in the form of higher taxes and fewer economic opportunities. The continuous creation of rules by federal agencies often disregards the will of Congress and pushes the boundaries of their statutory missions.

Fortunately, that may be about to change. On May 1, the Supreme Court of the United States announced it would hear Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo , which deals with a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule on fishery inspectors. This rule would force fishermen to invite federal inspectors on their ships to observe operations and require them to compensate the inspectors for their time. Unsurprisingly, fishing company Loper Bright Enterprises decided to appeal the case to SCOTUS. The court’s decision to accept this appeal could signal the justices’ willingness to revisit a nearly 40-year-old legal doctrine established in the landmark 1984 court case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council , which the NMFS has used to justify its new rule.

Read the full article at the Washington Examiner

US Supreme Court deals blow to EPA’s reach under Clean Water Act

May 30, 2023 — The United States Supreme Court rolled back the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act, ruling that the law only applies to wetlands that are indistinguishable from “waters of the United States.”

Environmental groups have condemned the court’s decision as a limitation on the ability of communities to protect waterways and the fish that live in them, but others argue that it’s a necessary curtailment of federal overreach and state bodies can better balance environmental protections and local needs.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Will a Supreme Court decision in fisheries case tie the hands of all government regulators?

May 23, 2023 — Fishing for Atlantic herring may seem worlds away from restrictions on power plant emissions or responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. But a case before the U.S. Supreme Court could affect all those activities and more by altering how federal agencies apply scientific expertise in carrying out their regulatory duties.

On 1 May the high court agreed to hear a case brought by four family-owned herring businesses. They argue that the National Marine Fisheries Service has no authority to require them to pay for onboard observers who would monitor their catch to help the agency protect declining fish stocks.

But legal scholars and environmentalists say much more than fishing is at stake in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. When the high court rules, most likely in the spring of 2024, it may also take a step back from a long-standing legal doctrine, called the Chevron deference, used to determine whether government agencies have exceeded their authority. The doctrine has been applied for nearly 40 years to everything the government does, including regulations affecting businesses, schools, and the general population.

Read the full article at Science.org

Appeals court ruling on 24/7 GPS-monitoring of charter boats could play role in Supreme Court Chevron battle

May 16, 2023 — An appeals court ruling in favor of Gulf of Mexico charter boats earlier this year could play a big role as the U.S. Supreme Court determines the limits of NOAA Fisheries’ rulemaking authority.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will take up a challenge to federal regulations brought by New Jersey fishermen, who sued the government to stop a 2020 New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) rule that would force them to pay for at-sea monitors out of pocket. Fishermen argued that the financial burden of paying for monitors was crippling for their business

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

A Welcome Supreme Court Review of Chevron Deference

May 3, 2o23 — Few Supreme Court doctrines have been stretched more by regulators and lower-court judges than Chevron deference, which says judges should defer to regulators’ interpretations when laws are supposedly ambiguous. The High Court agreed Monday to give Chevron a much-needed legal review.

The Court agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which concerns an obscure regulation under a 1976 fishing law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act lets the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) require fishing vessels to carry federal observers on board to enforce the agency’s fishing regulations.

In three narrow circumstances, the law also permits the agency to require vessels to pay the salaries of government monitors. In February 2020 the agency went further and required some vessels to foot the bill for government monitors when those narrow circumstances don’t apply. This would cost fishermen about 20% of their annual revenue.

Read the full article at the Wall Street Journal