Court open to upholding US fishing monitor rule even without 'Chevron' doctrine
By Nate Raymond
Nov 4 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Monday appeared open to upholding a federal rule requiring commercial fishermen to fund a program to monitor for overfishing of herring off New England's coast even after the U.S. Supreme Court in that same case issued a landmark ruling curbing agencies' regulatory power.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, during oral arguments, weighed the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision to scrap a 40-year-old legal doctrine that had required courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer.
The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court nixed the doctrine, known as "Chevron deference," after taking up an appeal by several commercial fishing companies of the D.C. Circuit panel's 2-1 ruling in August 2022 that had relied on the doctrine to uphold the fishing rule.
The justices sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit to reassess the rule's validity post-Chevron using their own judgment and for further arguments by the fishing companies, led by New Jersey-based Loper Bright Enterprises.
"With the end of Chevron deference, this case I think presents what should be a straightforward question of statutory interpretation," Ryan Mulvey, a lawyer for the companies at the conservative legal group Cause of Action Institute.
He argued the 1976 fishing law the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which the National Marine Fisheries Service relied on to craft the 2020 rule, does not authorize the type of industry-funded monitoring program like the one at issue.
But the two D.C. Circuit judges who previously upheld the rule appeared open to doing so again after assessing whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act would allow for such an industry-funded program.
"Without specifically saying that costs are going be borne by the regulated entity, a statute can still be best read to allow for that," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Judith Rogers, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, noted the fishing companies did not dispute that the government could require them to have monitors on their vessels and quarter them. She questioned why funding their salaries was a step too far.
"Congress didn't say in the statute, 'industry shall never be charged for the cost of the observer's salary,'" she said.
The rule at issue provided for a program that aimed to monitor 50% of declared herring fishing trips in the regulated area, with program costs split between the federal government and the fishing industry. The monitors assess the amount and type of catch including species inadvertently caught.
The cost of paying for the monitoring services was an estimated $710 per day for 19 days a year, which could reduce a vessel's income by up to 20 percent, according to government figures.
The D.C. Circuit panel originally relied on the Chevron doctrine to defer to the agency's interpretation of the law, with U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump who was on Monday's panel, dissenting.
The Supreme Court on appeal overturned the 1984 ruling called Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that had established that principle of deference.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that instead of deferring to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes, courts "must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
The case is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 21-5166.
For Loper Bright: Ryan Mulvey of Cause of Action Institute
For the government: Daniel Halainen of the U.S. Department of Justice
Read more:
Democrats push US Senate bill to reverse Supreme Court ruling curbing agency power
US Supreme Court curbs federal agency powers, overturning 1984 precedent
US Supreme Court appears split over US agency powers in fishing dispute
US Supreme Court to review federal agency powers in fishing dispute
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
