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
Mga Kaugnay na Asset
Pinakabagong Balita
Disclaimer: Ang mga kabilang sa XM Group ay nagbibigay lang ng serbisyo sa pagpapatupad at pag-access sa aming Online Trading Facility, kung saan pinapahintulutan nito ang pagtingin at/o paggamit sa nilalaman na makikita sa website o sa pamamagitan nito, at walang layuning palitan o palawigin ito, at hindi din ito papalitan o papalawigin. Ang naturang pag-access at paggamit ay palaging alinsunod sa: (i) Mga Tuntunin at Kundisyon; (ii) Mga Babala sa Risk; at (iii) Kabuuang Disclaimer. Kaya naman ang naturang nilalaman ay ituturing na pangkalahatang impormasyon lamang. Mangyaring isaalang-alang na ang mga nilalaman ng aming Online Trading Facility ay hindi paglikom, o alok, para magsagawa ng anumang transaksyon sa mga pinansyal na market. Ang pag-trade sa alinmang pinansyal na market ay nagtataglay ng mataas na lebel ng risk sa iyong kapital.
Lahat ng materyales na nakalathala sa aming Online Trading Facility ay nakalaan para sa layuning edukasyonal/pang-impormasyon lamang at hindi naglalaman – at hindi dapat ituring bilang naglalaman – ng payo at rekomendasyon na pangpinansyal, tungkol sa buwis sa pag-i-invest, o pang-trade, o tala ng aming presyo sa pag-trade, o alok para sa, o paglikom ng, transaksyon sa alinmang pinansyal na instrument o hindi ginustong pinansyal na promosyon.
Sa anumang nilalaman na galing sa ikatlong partido, pati na ang mga nilalaman na inihanda ng XM, ang mga naturang opinyon, balita, pananaliksik, pag-analisa, presyo, ibang impormasyon o link sa ibang mga site na makikita sa website na ito ay ibibigay tulad ng nandoon, bilang pangkalahatang komentaryo sa market at hindi ito nagtataglay ng payo sa pag-i-invest. Kung ang alinmang nilalaman nito ay itinuring bilang pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, kailangan mong isaalang-alang at tanggapin na hindi ito inilaan at inihanda alinsunod sa mga legal na pangangailangan na idinisenyo para maisulong ang pagsasarili ng pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, at dahil dito ituturing ito na komunikasyon sa marketing sa ilalim ng mga kaugnay na batas at regulasyon. Mangyaring siguruhin na nabasa at naintindihan mo ang aming Notipikasyon sa Hindi Independyenteng Pananaliksik sa Pag-i-invest at Babala sa Risk na may kinalaman sa impormasyong nakalagay sa itaas, na maa-access dito.
