Tag Archives: Cause of Action Institute
The Plaintiffs in the Supreme Court’s Big Chevron Case Moonlight as Anti–Offshore Wind Activists
William Bright, Wayne Reichle, and Stefan Axelsson have a lot in common. They live in Southern New Jersey and run commercial fishing operations whose catch includes Atlantic herring, silvery little bottom-dwellers that feed on krill and fish larvae. They are plaintiffs in a Supreme Court case that could soon kneecap federal agencies’ ability to write and enforce regulations. And for the past few years, they’ve had a common adversary: offshore wind developers. Plaintiffs in one of the most closely watched cases this term participated in efforts to block two major renewables projects off the coast of New Jersey, Ocean Wind 1 and 2. The campaign against Ocean Wind 1 and 2 was aided by a network of conservative groups and corporate backers, who rejoiced when Danish energy firm Ørsted canceled both projects in November. Now, when the Supreme Court rules on Chevron this spring, these groups may have a much bigger win to celebrate. more, >>click to read<< 06:53
Cape May fishermen at center of major U.S. Supreme Court case
Wayne Reichle, owner of Lund’s Fisheries.
On Wednesday, the justices heard testimony in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The justices are deciding whether to uphold or overrule the four-decades old Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision. The justices heard three-and-a-half hours of oral argument this week. Multiple media outlets reported the justices asked questions indicating that the Chevron doctrine is unlikely to remain fully intact. The fishermen are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service for requiring the herring industry to take on the cost of paying observers. Who is supporting the fisherman and why? The fishermen are represented by the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance. Groups such as the Cato Institute, Christian Employers Alliance, and members of Congress such as Sen. Ted Cruz and Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have filed briefs in support of the fishermen. more, >>click to read<< 12:15
A Small Fish and an Uncollected Fee Add Up to Big-Government Challenge at the Supreme Court
The case could undercut the power of federal regulators on major issues including air pollution and securities fraud. It also exemplifies the way many of the high court’s biggest fights are born these days — driven less by the practical aims of the litigants than by the ideological vision of the interest groups behind the suits. The fight concerns a federal requirement that some herring boats host government-approved observers aboard their vessels and cover an estimated $710 daily cost. The fisherman say that would be an onerous burden on their family-owned businesses — so onerous they are suing even though the fee is on hold and might never kick in. “We have not had to pay. We’re just nervous about this hanging over our head,” said Bill Bright in an interview in Cape May, New Jersey, where he runs his two-vessel fishing business. “So we feel that we need to solve this problem now.” Photos, >>click to read<< 11:14
Courts threaten to sink federal fishery monitoring
NOAA suffered a major blow in February when a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana threw out a rule that would have required charter boats in the Gulf of Mexico to be equipped with electronic monitors to report fish catches. Fishermen complained that the devices would cost them as much as $3,000 per boat. And the agency may be poised for an even bigger setback from the Supreme Court. Justices last month said they would take up a case that could decide whether NOAA has the legal authority to force New England herring fishermen to hire third-party contractors to monitor their fishing at a cost of up to $700 per day. >click to read< 13:55
Cause of Action Institute: Supreme Court to Hear Fishermen’s Chevron Challenge
The justices will review Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The fishermen, represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement and lawyers from Cause of Action Institute, petitioned the Court in November to overrule a funding scheme that would force them to hand over 20 percent of their pay to third-party at-sea monitors they must bring on their boats—a mandate that Congress never approved by statute. Amicus briefs in support of the fishermen’s case were filed by 38 organizations and individuals, including one signed by 18 state attorneys general. “The Supreme Court has an opportunity to correct one of the most consequential judicial errors in a generation. Video, lots of noteworthy links with lots of info. >click to read< 19:00
Fate of NJ Fishermen in the Hands of Supreme Court
New Jersey herring fishermen asked the Supreme Court in a final brief to rein in regulators that rely on judicial deference to circumvent the will of Congress. The fishermen are challenging the lawfulness of a regulation that could force them to hand over 20 percent of their pay to third-party at-sea monitors they must carry on their boats—a mandate that Congress never approved by statute and did not give the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the authority to require by regulation. The U.S. Solicitor General recently filed a brief with the Court urging the justices to ignore the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution in order to preserve the controversial doctrine of Chevrondeference. >click to read the press release< 15:22
Herring Fishermen lose challenge to rule requiring at-sea monitors
A federal judge in Washington D.C. on Tuesday denied the bid of New Jersey-based herring fishermen who sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) last year to block a new regulation that will require them to pay for third-party “at-sea monitors” who will survey by-catch. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the agency had not acted in violation of the MSA,,, About half-a-dozen small fishing vessel operators, including the Loper Bright Enterprise, brought the lawsuit last year. >click to read< 11:57
Family Fishermen Move to Block Industry-Killing At-Sea Monitoring Rule
Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) today filed a motion for summary judgement on behalf of a group of New Jersey fishermen, asking a D.C. Federal Court to vacate job-killing fisheries regulations called the “Omnibus Amendment.” CoA Institute filed suit in February to challenge the industry-killing rule, which requires certain boats in the Atlantic herring fishery to carry “at-sea monitors” at their own cost. The Omnibus Amendment—designed by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and finalized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Commerce—is expected to cost fishermen upwards of $700 a day, leading to a projected 20% drop in returns-to-owner (profit). Not only is this industry already overregulated, but the agencies are forcing this unlawful rule upon fisherman without any statutory authority to do so. >click to read< 15:25
Cause of Action Institute will be at the Seafood Expo North America in Boston. Share your story with us!
Have you been negatively impacted by the government regulations that plague the commercial fishing industry?
Share your story with us! From March 17th – 19th, Cause of Action Institute will be at the Seafood Expo North America in Boston, Massachusetts. Come visit us in Booth 2667 to learn more about our work defending the rights and economic freedoms of commercial fishermen. Can’t come see us? Contact us at [email protected], or share your story with us here. Our Work, John Yates v. United States, Goethel v. Pritzker, United States v. Black, Omnibus Amendment , >click to read<10:53
CoA Institute Sends Letter to Secretary Ross Requesting Public Confirmation of Controversial Fishery Regulation
The importance of an open and transparent government is rooted in the federal government’s ability to choose winners and losers, create barriers to economic freedom, and limit personal liberties. Family-owned fishing firms in New England recently had their economic freedom put at-risk when it was revealed that the government had secretly approved a proposal to impose new, and statutorily unauthorized, costs on their fishing operations. That’s why Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross yesterday, criticizing his office’s lack of transparency and inadequate analysis surrounding the controversial fishery management regulations. >click to read< 10:46
CoA Institute Highlights Deficiencies in Proposed Rule to Shift Burdensome Costs of At-Sea Monitoring to Commercial Fishermen
The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), seeks to approve and implement a controversial set of regulatory amendments that would create a new industry-funding requirement for at-sea monitoring in the Atlantic herring fishery and, moreover, create a standardized process for introducing similar requirements in other New England fisheries. Under the so-called Omnibus Amendment, the fishing industry would be forced to bear the burdensome cost of allowing third-party monitors to ride their boats in line with the NEFMC’s supplemental monitoring goals. This would unfairly and unlawfully restrict economic opportunity in the fishing industry. >click to read<14:29
CoA Institute Lawsuit Prompts Archivist to Examine Potential Record Destruction at NOAA
Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed a lawsuit last summer against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) seeking copies of electronic records created through the agency’s Google-based email platform. These types of records are commonly known as “instant messages.” The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests at issue (available here and here) also sought formal agency guidance on the retention of “Google Chat” or “Google Hangouts” messages. We had already learned, through earlier investigation, that at least one internal NOAA handbook, dating from March 2012, instructed agency employees to treat all chat messages as “off the record,” raising concerns about potential unlawful record destruction at NOAA. >click to read< 15:22
NOAA FOIA Response Suggests Refusal to Search Council Member Email Accounts for Records on At-Sea Monitoring Amendment
Earlier this month, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed an administrative appeal of a final response by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) to CoA Institute’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request concerning NOAA’s efforts to expand industry funded at-sea monitoring—specifically, to the herring and mackerel fisheries—and to lay the foundation for industry funding across all of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. NOAA’s processing of the request suggests that the agency failed to search email accounts belonging to members of the fishery management councils even though they are subject to public disclosure. Based on the limited records that were disclosed, NOAA’s search appears improperly limited to its own employees. >click to read< 15:00
Trump’s monument review is as secretive as Obama’s designations
Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is ripe for abuse, as major decisions impacting vast public lands, natural resources, property rights, livelihoods and private industry are left to the sole discretion of the president. After such a unilateral designation, the president does not need to substantiate his decision in any meaningful way, beyond the use of a few magic words on the face of the proclamation. It seemed like a positive step when President Trump in April issued an executive order seeking public input for a review of national monument designations over the last two decades. But it now appears that any hope for additional transparency may have been premature. click here to read the story 19:25
A fisherman’s tale of fighting Uncle Sam
We’re probably going well off the beaten path on this one, but I wanted to draw your attention to a lawsuit which has been percolating in the system since 2015 and may be coming to the Supreme Court later this year. It involves a small volume fisherman who is fighting back against onerous regulations from the Department of Commerce which are threatening to put him (and so many other family operations) out of business. David Goethel is in the fight of his life because new government regulations are costing him more per day than he can generally earn in profit from his fishing operation. Cause of Action Institute (CoAI) is working on this case and provides the details. click here to read the story 11:45
NOAA Officials May Be Illegally Deleting Skype and Google Chat conversations
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) might illegally be destroying records of a recent meeting discussing new regulations against the fishing industry, according to a conservative legal group in Washington, D.C. Cause of Action Institute (CoA) filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the NOAA to obtain communications during a New England Fishery Management Council meeting hashing out new rules foisted upon the country’s fishing industry. The group believes the agency is deleting Skype and Google Chat conversations that took place during the April meeting. The NOAA General Counsel considers communications through Google Chat to be off the record and will not be recorded anyway, according to a 2012 handbook guide CoA obtained. CoA disputed the agency’s claim, and pointed to provisions within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The NARA, which maintains government records, states that any communications created on NOAA’s Gmail interface qualify under the Federal Records Act. CoA Institute requested e-mails, instant messaging, Google chat messages, text messages, and any Skype messages NOAA employees sent during the April 18–20, 2017 NEFMC meetings. click here to read the story 16:32
Fisherman, lawyers mull new at-sea monitoring suit
They lost in U.S. District Court in New Hampshire last summer and failed to have that decision overturned in federal appeals court in Boston this spring. Still, New Hampshire groundfisherman David Goethel and his legal team may not be done in their legal challenge of the federal government’s ability to shift the costs of at-sea monitoring to groundfishermen. “We’re still assessing all of our legal options at this point,” said Julie Smith, one of the lawyers from Washington D.C.-based Cause of Action Institute that has represented Goethel and Northeast Fishing Sector 13 in the initial federal lawsuit and appeal. Smith declined to be more specific, but clearly the options are limited: Goethel and his lawyers could swing for the fences and petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case, hoping it would overturn the April decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals upholding the judgment in the original lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire. click here to read the story 08:57
U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Decision on Reg That Will Put 60 Percent of New England Ground Fishermen Out of Business
On Friday, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling last summer that a lawsuit filed by Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) on behalf of Plaintiffs David Goethel and Northeast Fishery Sector 13 against the U.S. Department of Commerce should be dismissed. In its opinion, the Court found that the fishermen’s suit was untimely and therefore did not consider the Plaintiff’s legal arguments that requiring fishermen to pay for monitors is against the law. However, in a rare move, the judges highlighted the devastating economic impacts of the regulation in question, and urged Congress to clarify the law and who should pay for the at-sea monitors. “I am disappointed by the decision,” Goethel said. “But I’m hopeful that Congress will heed the Court’s direction and clarify the law. It is the government’s obligation to pay for these at-sea monitors.,, Northeast Fishery Sector 13 Manager John Haran said, “I’m disappointed that timeliness of the case was the Court’s deciding factor and not the merits of our arguments. The fishermen in my sector can’t sustain this industry funding requirement and many will be put out of business if this mandate remains in place.” click here to read the story 14:37
Withdraw Unlawful Plan Forcing Fishermen to Pay for At-Sea Monitors – Cause of Action Institute
Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) has submitted a regulatory comment to the New England Fishery Management Council (“NEFMC”) questioning the Council’s legal authority to move forward a controversial amendment that would force more fishermen to pay for costly at-sea monitors, which are the government’s responsibility. CoA Institute advised the NEFMC to abandon the Omnibus Amendment, which would imperil an already hard-hit fishing industry by requiring certain fishermen to pay for monitors to police their at-sea activity. The plan would also open more regional Atlantic fisheries to industry-funded monitors. “The Omnibus Amendment is unlawful and will make it virtually impossible for countless small-business fishermen to pursue their livelihood,” said Julie Smith, CoA Institute Vice President. “Many of these fishermen come from families that have fished American coastal waters for generations. The federal government should not regulate them out of business. Congress has not authorized it and the economic consequences are too dire. If an agency lacks statutory authority or appropriated funds, it has no power to act. The New England Council should withdraw the Omnibus Amendment.” The cost for a monitor under the amendment is expected to range from $710 to $818 per day at sea. That would exceed the revenue a fisherman typically lands from his daily catch. CoA Institute represents fishermen challenging another industry-funded monitoring program in the Northeast groundfish fishery. In that case, a government study predicted that industry-funded monitoring would result in up to 60 percent of mostly small-scale vessels going out of business—a result that the government blithely characterized as a “restructuring” of the groundfish fleet. Learn more about the case HERE 14:00
East Coast fishermen file appeal over cost of government-required ‘at-sea monitors’
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, requires groundfishermen — those who catch cod, haddock and other common bottom-dwelling species — to carry on board “at-sea monitors.” The observers, hired by three for-profit companies, are third-party workers whose task it is to observe fishermen’s compliance with federal regulations and ensure annual quotas are not exceeded. The dispute lies in the cost of the monitors and who should pay for them: Fishermen are billed on average $700 a day when a regulator is present. NOAA, meanwhile, says monitors were placed on fishing boats like Goethel’s only 14 percent of the time in 2016 — and claims the fishing industry supported this system of regulation in 2010 when a vote went before the New England Fishery Management Council, an advisory board to NOAA that sets the rules. “At sea monitors were originally supported by the sectors when we went from a days-at-sea form of management to a quota based form of management in 2010,” said John Bullard, the regional administrator for NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office. Read the story here 14:22
Cause of Action Institute sues NOAA For New England Fishery Management Council information on member selection
In its July 13 FOIA request, Cause of Action sought information on how the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA select members in the New England Fishery Management Council, which regulates fishing off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. “The records at issue in this case, which include records of communication between high-ranking agency officials, will permit the public to understand how the most recent round of membership selection for the NEFMC was handled, and whether that process was at all tinged by political considerations or other untoward government action,” the complaint states. Cause of Action claims that NOAA has never disclosed information about how it selects members of the eight regional regulatory councils operating under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and that the membership might not accurately represent the fishing industry. Read the rest here 10:44
Court Rules Against Local Fishermen, Upholds Job-Killing Government Mandate
Today, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed the lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs David Goethel and Northeast Fishery Sector 13 against the U.S. Department of Commerce. In December 2015, the Department of Commerce ordered that fishermen who fish for cod, flounder and certain other fish in the Northeast United States not only must carry National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) enforcement contractors known as “at-sea monitors” on their vessels during fishing trips, but must pay out-of-pocket for the cost of those monitors. This “industry funding” requirement would devastate the Northeast fishing industry, at the price of many jobs and livelihoods. The District Court’s order allows that requirement to remain in place. The Court found that the fishermen’s suit was untimely and that the requirement that monitors be funded by the fishermen was authorized by law. “I am very disappointed by this decision,” said Goethel. “I’ve made a living fishing in New England for more than 30 years, but I can’t afford to fish if I have to pay for at-sea monitors. I’m grateful to Cause of Action Institute for joining the fight, and I hope that the rule of law will win in the end.” “The fishermen in my sector can’t sustain this industry funding requirement,” said Northeast Fishery Sector 13 Manager John Haran. “They’ll have to try other fisheries, if they can keep fishing at all.” “While we respect the District Court and its decision, it appears that decision is contrary to the law and facts,” said Alfred J. Lechner, Jr., President and CEO of Cause of Action Institute and a former federal judge. “In the end, the federal government is overextending its regulatory power and is destroying an industry. We intend to study the decision and consider further action.” link 18:55
East Coast fishermen spar with federal government over cost of at-sea monitors
Every year, the federal government spends millions monitoring New England commercial fishermen to ensure they ply their timeless maritime trade in accordance with the law. Now, a judge is set to rule on who should foot the bill for the on-board monitors: the government or the fishing boat owners. The East Coast fishermen say sticking them with the bill would be the “death knell” for their industry and is illegal on the part of the federal government. Fishermen of important New England food species such as cod and haddock will have to start paying the cost of at-sea monitors soon under new rules. Monitors — third-party workers hired to observe fishermen’s compliance with federal regulations — collect data to help determine future fishing quotas and can cost about $18,000 a year, or $710 per voyage. “It is unlawful for NOAA to force struggling fishermen to pay for their own at-sea monitors,” said former federal judge Alfred Lechner, the institute’s president and CEO. “The significant costs of these regulations should be the responsibility of the government.” Read the rest here 08:57
