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
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
