Ocean Conservancy’s Post

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.  The central issue in the case concerns the National Marine Fisheries Service’s authority to charge the cost of on-board monitors and observers to the owners of the boats whose activities are being monitored.  The underlying statute charges NMFS with responsibility for maintaining healthy and sustainable fish populations, and NMFS has determined that the best way to do that is to (1) limit the number and size of fish that can be caught and sold, and (2) place observers on board fishing boats.  But who pays for that observer?  NMFS said it should be the fishing companies.  Historically, the courts have left decisions about such questions to the expertise of agencies, limited by what the courts consider “reasonable” or “arbitrary” based on the evidence before it. History – precedent – is less important than it once was.  The Plaintiff in this case, who has stated that he understands and values the agency’s role in fisheries management, was simply concerned about the agency’s decision to require him to pay for that observer.  But the interest groups that are funding this litigation have other goals in mind: they’ve asked the Court to issue a decision that would overturn a 40+ year old case, upending the traditional balance of powers and limiting deference to agency expertise.  Depending on the language the Court uses in its eventual ruling, the decision could significantly reduce the ability of government protect public health and safety and our shared environment – to do the job Congress told them to do.  This is a case worth watching. This article from Vox offers a cogent overview and explanation of the 40+ year history of the precedent the Court is being asked to overturn in this case. https://lnkd.in/eHfNj-XF #administrativelaw #environmentallaw #environmentalprotection

Chevron Deference Doctrine at risk to be weakened or removed The U.S. Supreme Court this week is set to hear a bid by commercial fishermen to avoid costs associated with a government-run fish conservation program in a dispute that gives its conservative justices another chance to curb the regulatory powers of federal agencies. the companies have asked the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, to rein in or overturn a precedent established in 1984 that calls for judges to defer to federal agency interpretation of U.S. laws, a doctrine called "Chevron deference." The Chevron deference doctrine is an important doctrine in administrative law in the United States. It refers to a legal principle established by the United States Supreme Court in the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). The doctrine outlines the approach that courts should take when reviewing agency interpretations of statutes that Congress has charged the agency with administering. In brief, the doctrine framework includes two steps: 1.     Step One: Courts must first determine whether the statute is clear and unambiguous regarding the specific issue at hand. If the statute is clear, the court must give effect to the plain language of the statute, and no deference is given to the agency's interpretation. 2.     Step Two: If the statute is ambiguous or silent on the issue, the court defers to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute, as long as it is a permissible construction of the statute. The court's role is limited to ensuring that the agency's interpretation is reasonable, not to substitute its own interpretation. ussupremecourt#chevrondeferencedoctrine#interpretation#administrative law# https://lnkd.in/gdsT8zE9

The DRI Center for Law and Public Policy recently filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court addressing judicial treatment of authority sought to be exercised by federal administrative agencies. The case is Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 22-451.  The issue is whether an administrative agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, has the authority under relevant legislation to implement an industry-funded monitoring program applicable to certain fisheries.  The Center’s amicus brief was filed in support of the petitioners but takes the position that the agency’s authority should be tested under the “major questions doctrine” rather than the traditional Chevron doctrine.  DRI members Melinda Kollross and Don Sampen of Clausen Miller P.C., in Chicago drafted the amicus brief, which was filed on July 13, 2023. Ms. Kollross is a member of The Center’s Amicus Committee. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3OMHnhk. Read the full amicus brief here: https://bit.ly/44gH4RH. #DRICommunity #DRILawyer #DRITheCenter #PublicPolicy #Legislation #Advocacy #Law  The Center provides the most effective voice for the defense bar in the discussion of substantive law, judicial process, constitutional issues, and the integrity of the civil justice system at both the national and state levels. 

🌟 As a real estate and marketing professional, how do legal battles impacting wetlands permitting authority affect our industry and environment? 🌿 - Florida's motion for a stay highlights the significant effects on water resources, wildlife, and land use, emphasizing the state's sovereign interests. - Moss' denial of the stay request underscores the need for a balance between efficiency and sovereignty in regulatory administration. - The case's outcome has far-reaching implications for businesses, environmental groups, and regulatory frameworks, with diverse stakeholders taking positions on the matter. Let's reflect on how this legal dispute may shape the future of wetlands permitting and environmental conservation in Florida. #RealEstate #EnvironmentalImpact #LegalBattle #FloridaRegulations #WetlandsConservation #RegulatoryFramework

A good read on possible effects of the Sacket decision and the changes to the definition of wetlands recently made. Waiting to see how it will make changes here in Alaska.

The Forest Practices Board has released a series of reports on an audit of forest practices on five woodlots in the Campbell River Natural Resource District, and the results are in! Take a look and see how the licensees' compliance with legal requirements measured up. https://lnkd.in/gZeG3e54 #forests #forestpractices

For today's #WetlandsWednesday, check out this article that our public policy & regulation section chair, John Lowenthal is quoted in, on the weakening of federal wetlands protections in America. https://bit.ly/3MriCH4

State and local governments are not well equipped to safeguard wetlands from developers in the absence of federal protection. How many wetlands will be lost to private development and industry such as mines by the Boundary Waters or the Okefenokee before this disastrous decision is repealed?

Listen to a WLRN interview with Joe Bonasia. Here are some excerpts. (questions from Steve, answers from Joe) Q: So how does this make the laws any stiffer than it already is? A: Here's an example. Very recently, we had that Ginnie Springs lawsuit, where a bottling company wants a permit to take a million gallons of water per day out of the ... aquifer and springs. Well, that was contested by an environmental group who said that harming the aquifer with that much consumption would not be in the public interest. 19,000 Floridians went on record and said we don't want this. You would think that represents the public interest that we know what the heck is in our best interest? Well, due to basically what comes down to a technicality, the administrative court ruled that the water district should issue the permit. And that won't happen with our amendment. This would supersede sucking all that water out of the aquifer on the ecosystem. Q: So it compels the state agencies to take action? A: This only allows us to go after the state executive branch. We cannot go after a corporation. We can't go after a local government. But the thing is almost everything has to go through the state agencies. It is the state agencies' job to make sure that the polluters don't pollute. This is not about people walking away with some monetary reward. It's all about remedy. If we win, the waters have to be cleaned up. Q: Give me your one-minute elevator speech as to why this is needed. A: Clean and healthy waters are absolutely vital to our way of life down here in Florida, our health, local economies, our property values, the wildlife we love. We need a tool to defend ourselves against those special interests -and I think a lot of people know who they are - that have undue influence over environmental policy. And so we need to protect our best interests for ourselves, for our children, for our grandchildren. https://lnkd.in/e7ZaR_Gw

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor spoke to Western States Water Council representatives this morning on a panel that discussed Alaska’s view of cooperative federalism.  The Western States Water Council is a government entity with representatives appointed by the governors of 18 western states. Alaska is hosting the Council’s fall meeting this week in Anchorage. “The breakdown in communication with the federal agencies is why we find ourselves in this situation—it’s not talking about it, it’s fighting it out in the courts—and that’s a really unfortunate situation to be in,” said Attorney General Taylor. “Calling the federal agencies’ many decisions to take action without State communication “counterproductive and a waste of resources,” the Attorney General suggested this breakdown is caused in part by “the chief executive issuing broad edicts and mandating these agencies to push these things out without congressional support.” He further explained that “when that kind of thing happens, I think you’re bound to have more of this aggressive stance on the part of the federal agencies, and the states . . . better react because we have to protect the subsistence fishing in rural Alaska, we have to protect our right to develop lands.” Some recent subjects involving lawsuits between Alaska and federal agencies include litigation on Alaska’s right to manage fisheries on the Kuskokwim River, the EPA wood stove regulations, Native lands into trust, and the repeal of the 2020 Roadless Rule in the Tongass. Pictured left to right: Panel moderator and Alaska Assistant Attorney General Julie Pack, Acting Commissioner of DEC Emma Pokon, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, Commissioner of ADFG Doug Vincent-Lang, and DNR Deputy Commissioner Brent Goodrum. #WeAreAKLaw