Big Win Against Administrative State

[Bucktail Bob]

OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
The buck stops with the President—but not when unelected
officials get a veto. Under a federal fishing law, a Regional
Council can veto some actions taken by the Secretary of Commerce. That power is significant. But the Council members
were never appointed by the President, as the Constitution
requires. Two fishermen rightly challenge this scheme. The
remedy, we hold, is to sever the pocket-veto powers so the
Council plays only an advisory role.
I. THE FISHERMEN CHALLENGE

LOWERED FISHING LIMITS
A. The Magnuson-Stevens Act Regulates U.S. Fisheries
B. After the Council Lowered Fishing Limits,
the Fishermen Sued

II. THE FISHERMEN HAVE STANDING

III. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
A. The Council’s Pocket-Veto Powers Are
Significant Authority

IV. COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS

V. THE REMEDY IS TO SEVER THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWERS


Copy and paste into browser.

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/241420p.pdf

[Broad Bill]

I'd be careful celebrating or calling this a big win for anyone but the commercial fishery without understanding the ripple effects across the fishery and both sectors. Here's my personal interpretation.

NMFS knows there's a problem with the fishery. The commercials have primarily caused that problem along with completely ineffective regulations. NMFS cuts commercial quotas by 42% to address their concerns and the commercials don't like it. So unlike the recreational sector, the commercial sector hires the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian activist group who fights against government over reach, to get their quota back so they can destroy what's left of the stock. It takes science completely out of the equation and does nothing to sustain fisheries. All this does is raise quotas, increase catch values for the commercial sector and put more pressure on a fishery which is already being pushed beyond it's limits.

The commercial sector I'm sure funds these lawsuits through dues of some nature or membership fees. The recreational sector spends and generates more as has been pointed out here in the form of excise taxes. Difference is the commercial sector uses their funding to address industry issues while God only knows what ASA is spending our money on.

To answer questioned raised recently on the site, it's not NMFS, ASMFC or MAFMC that should be sued, it's the ASA.

Read the article in the following link. I don't see a lot mentioned about recreational fisherman or the health of the summer flounder stock.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-fishery-management-councils-structure-is-unconstitutional-court-rules-2024-09-25/#:~:text=The%20fishermen%2C%20Raymond%20Lofstad%20 and,Legal%20Foundation%20in%20their%20lawsuit.

Ruling will be appealed, commercials will win, quotas will be increased, politicians will be paid off and the pressure on a declining fishery will simply intensify. As I've said for years, asinine regulations and commercials netting are killing this fishery as they did the winter flounder stock many years ago along with many other fisheries and when regulations are tightened they cry they can't make a living because the regulations are too restrictive. It's an absolutely ?"@#*^! unmitigated disaster.

Sent from my desktop so Dave don't break my &*%^$!