Fishermen"s Finest, Inc. v. United States, 59 F.4th 1269

Background

Congress enacted the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to assert sovereign authority over fisheries in the EEZ and authorized limited‑access, quota‑based programs; the statute disclaims creation of property rights in fish or in limited access authorizations.
The Fisheries Service issues vessel‑specific Federal Fisheries Permits (FFP), transferable License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses (with restrictions), and Amendment 80 Quota Share (A80 QS) permits under regulations; the agency and rules state these are privileges subject to revocation.
Fishermen’s Finest, Inc. (FFI) owned vessels with relevant endorsements, LLP licenses, and A80 QS permits and built a new vessel (America’s Finest) that initially failed the U.S.‑built requirement; Congress passed the Coast Guard Authorization Act waiving that requirement but imposing aggregate sideboards limiting FFI’s catch to historical figures.
FFI sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging the sideboards and related limitations effected an uncompensated Fifth Amendment taking by depriving it of the full value and use of its endorsements, licenses, permits, and vessels.
The Claims Court dismissed for failure to state a takings claim, finding no cognizable property interest in the licenses, permits, or in vessel use to fish; FFI appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LLP licenses and A80 QS permits are constitutionally protected property	FFI: 2007 amendments made permits transferable, exclusive, and effectively irrevocable, creating compensable property	Gov: Statute and regs continue to treat permits as revocable privileges; no Fifth Amendment property	Permits remain revocable privileges; no cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest
Whether 2007 Magnuson–Stevens amendments changed property status of permits	FFI: Amendments and limited‑access program criteria created traditional hallmarks of property	Gov: Statutory text and agency regs expressly disavow property rights and preserve revocability	Amendments do not create compensable property; statutory/regulatory language forecloses such expectation
Whether Coast Guard Act sideboards taking of vessel use to harvest/process fish	FFI: Sideboards deprived vessels of appurtenant fishing value and use, constituting a taking	Gov: Right to fish in EEZ is sovereignly regulated, not inherent in vessel ownership; any expectation stems from revocable privileges	No compensable interest in vessel use to fish; no taking established
Whether taxation or maritime liens convert privileges into compensable property	FFI: Subjecting permits to tax or maritime liens shows they are property	Gov: Taxation/levy practice does not convert a statutorily non‑compensable privilege into constitutional property	Taxation or liens do not transform revocable privileges into Fifth Amendment property

Key Cases Cited

Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (permits issued under Magnuson–Stevens are revocable privileges, not compensable property)
Am. Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (no inherent property interest in vessel use to fish in the EEZ; agency may deny or sanction permits)
United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (1973) (value added to property by a revocable government permit is not compensable)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (background principles and legal expectations define property rights for takings analysis)
Members of Peanut Quota Holders Ass’n v. United States, 421 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (statutory language can prevent formation of a protectable property interest)
Gowen, Inc. v. F/V Quality One, 244 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2001) (permits may be maritime appurtenances subject to liens—court silent on Fifth Amendment compensability)
Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States, 7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (regulatory or collateral privileges incidental to ownership are not necessarily Fifth Amendment property)