Off the coast of Cape May, New Jersey, Bill Bright skillfully steers his 140-foot fishing trawler across the open waters, hunting for schools of Atlantic herring. Yet, even there, the government’s reach is palpably close.
Fishing in Federal Waters
It’s not just the fish Bright is aware of; the presence of the federal government is unmistakably felt, Bright, like other captains, must notify regulatory bodies before departure, and their location is continuously monitored.
At Sea with Costs
While Bright is generally accepting of these rules, a controversial 2020 federal regulation requiring fishermen to pay the observers’ salaries – an additional $700 per day – has stirred up controversy among the fishing community.
Legal Lines
This rule is now at the center of a major legal showdown involving four family-run fishing businesses and the Department of Commerce, set to be argued in the Supreme Court.
The Case’s Wide Reach
This landmark case could have far-reaching implications, potentially curtailing the regulatory power of federal agencies in various sectors, from environmental to workplace safety.
The Conservative Push
The conservative legal movement has long sought to limit the power of government agencies, arguing that these bodies often establish regulations without sufficient input from Congress. For Bill Bright, however, this legal battle transcends ideological motives.
Bill Bright’s Battle
With 40 years in the seafood industry, Bright sees this as a personal fight for fairness in his field. “This is not about politics for me,” Bright asserts, emphasizing his focus on justice for the fishery.
Limiting Agency Powers
This case is part of a broader trend where federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have increasingly scrutinized and limited agency powers.
Navigating Court Currents
This trend was evident when the Biden administration’s efforts to extend the eviction moratorium during COVID-19 and to cancel student loan debts were thwarted by court decisions.
Legal Depths
The herring observer dispute hinges on a crucial legal question: how much leeway should courts grant to government agencies when they enact regulations not explicitly outlined in law?
Echoes of ’84
Since a pivotal 1984 Supreme Court decision, the standard has been to defer to agencies if their interpretation of a law is deemed ‘reasonable.’
The 1976 Act Debate
Lower courts have interpreted a 1976 law concerning the National Marine Fisheries Service as authorization for requiring companies to finance government observers.
Overfishing Laws
This law, aimed at preventing overfishing, empowers the agency to implement ‘necessary and appropriate’ regulations for species management. However, Bright and his peers contend that the law doesn’t specifically mention charging the fishing industry for these observers.
Fishermen Seek Change
They’re urging the Supreme Court to reduce or eliminate this judicial deference to agencies in such cases. A decision favoring their position could reshape the regulatory landscape across a multitude of industries, not just fishing.
The Big Picture
William Buzbee, a Georgetown Law professor with expertise in environmental and administrative law, emphasizes the broader implications of this case. “This case is not just about a few fishermen and a monitor,’ he suggested.
A Case Beyond the Sea
Buzbee added, “This case is a vehicle to maybe recast the way our government works from top to bottom … discrimination, food safety, pollution, the ability to have safe fish − the ability to find fish − all of these things will be affected by this court’s ruling.”
A New Era in Environmental Law?
While supportive of regulations for sustainable fisheries, essential for their herring-dependent livelihoods, Bright and his peers face steep expenses and uncertain incomes with each voyage.
A Decision Reshaping Regulation
Once a conservative-supported measure in the 1984 Chevron case to limit regulations, agency deference is now seen as overly empowering agencies, potentially causing legal inconsistencies.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could significantly influence regulatory practices across various sectors.
More from AllThingsFinance: Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Samuel Lazar sentenced for Jan. 6 insurrection; previously confidential case now revealed: Court Finally Unseals Secretive Case of Jan 6 Offender
Jack Smith continues pushing Judge Cannon, reminding her that “the speedy trial clock” is ticking
Jack Smith urges Judge Aileen Cannon for a speedy trial in a classified documents case involving ex-President Trump: Jack Smith continues pushing Judge Cannon, reminding her that “the speedy trial clock” is ticking
Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
Kari Lake loses First Amendment right to accuse Maricopa County recorder; Arizona Republic ponders if she’s channeling Rudy Giuliani in her sleep : Defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake advances while people compare her to Rudy Giuliani
More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
In Pennsylvania, a significant number of registered Democrats flipping is sending an unflattering signal to President Biden: More Democrats are flipping in a crucial swing state than Republicans
