Louisiana State v. NOAA, 70 F.4th 872

Background

NMFS issued a Final Rule (Dec. 2019) requiring turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on skimmer shrimp trawlers over 40 feet, including inshore operations; the Rule’s EIS projected modest Gulf‑wide economic effects and reduced bycatch.
The Rule was delayed from April to August 2021; Louisiana (LDWF) sued under the APA on August 11, 2021, seeking to set aside the Rule as arbitrary and capricious.
The district court granted a temporary preliminary injunction for Louisiana inshore waters but did not extend it; Louisiana then moved for summary judgment while NMFS cross‑moved and challenged Louisiana’s standing.
Louisiana primarily relied on: (a) an asserted ownership/quasi‑sovereign interest in state marine resources (citing Verity), (b) a declaration from LDWF Colonel Chad Hebert alleging enforcement burdens, and (c) parens patriae harms to the state economy; Louisiana submitted little state‑specific empirical evidence.
The district court held at summary judgment that Louisiana failed to carry its burden of proof on standing, finding the Verity claim unsupported by evidence, Hebert’s declaration speculative, and parens patriae allegations unsubstantiated; it entered summary judgment for NMFS.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding Louisiana had not produced competent evidence of an injury‑in‑fact, failed to preserve some arguments, and could not rely on speculative enforcement burdens or pleadings alone.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing based on ownership/quasi‑sovereign interest in marine resources	Louisiana: Rule injures State’s ownership/trustee interest in shrimp and marine resources (Verity).	NMFS: Louisiana offered no evidence showing injury to State resources; EIS estimates are Gulf‑wide and not Louisiana‑specific.	No standing — Louisiana failed to present competent evidence of concrete injury to its marine resources.
Parens patriae / quasi‑sovereign economic injury	Louisiana: Rule will economically harm a substantial segment of Louisiana residents (shrimp industry).	NMFS: Alleged economic harms are speculative and unsupported by state‑specific data.	No standing — Louisiana did not show injury to a sufficiently substantial segment; pleadings/EIS alone insufficient.
Proprietary injury from increased enforcement costs	Louisiana: Hebert declaration shows LDWF will incur unreimbursed enforcement costs and resource strain.	NMFS: Hebert’s declarations are speculative; the Rule does not compel state enforcement and NMFS provides coordinated funding via Joint Enforcement Agreements.	No standing — evidence is speculative; any enforcement cost likely discretionary or offset by NMFS funding; self‑inflicted or unsupported.
Preservation/forfeiture of additional sovereign arguments (preemption/regulatory interference)	Louisiana: Rule preempts state laws and interferes with regulation of marine resources.	NMFS: These arguments were not presented or developed below.	Forfeited — Court declined to consider newly pressed theories because they were not adequately raised in district court.

Key Cases Cited

State of La. ex rel. Guste v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988) (prior litigation recognizing Louisiana’s asserted interest in marine resources).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (plaintiff bears burden to show concrete, particularized injury at summary judgment stages).
Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) (distinguishing sovereign, quasi‑sovereign, and proprietary state interests and parens patriae standing).
Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 2015) (speculative affidavits insufficient to demonstrate Article III injury).
Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008) (summary judgment requires concrete and particularized proof of injury).
Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498 (5th Cir. 2022) (discussing "special solicitude" for states in standing analysis but not relieving burden to show concrete injury).