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
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
