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
Actifs liés
Dernières actualités
Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.
Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.
Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.
