Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc. v. Conservation Law Foundation
24-1481
| 1st Cir. | Jan 30, 2025Background
- The case involves the legality of a final rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) banning the use of vertical buoy lines for lobster and Jonah crab fishing in certain federal waters off Massachusetts each spring, to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales.
- The NMFS's rule was challenged by the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association (MALA) as conflicting with a statutory rider in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, which provided temporary authorization for such fisheries.
- The district court held for MALA, finding the NMFS rule invalid under the rider, and declared it void and unenforceable.
- NMFS and conservation groups appealed, arguing the Final Rule is permitted by an exception in the same statutory rider.
- The key factual dispute centered on whether an emergency rule closing a certain area (the "Wedge") to fishing gear was "in place" as of the rider's enactment date (Dec. 29, 2022) and could thus lawfully be finalized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the NMFS notice of appeal invalid for lack of Solicitor General authorization within 60 days? | SG approval required within deadline for appeal to be valid | Timely notice suffices; SG approval can follow | Timely notice valid; appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Did the Final Rule violate the statutory rider’s temporary authorization for lobster/Jonah crab fishing? | Final Rule conflicted with § 101(a) of the rider, not covered by exception | Exception in § 101(b) allows extension/making final of emergency rule in place on enactment | Final Rule permitted under the exception in § 101(b) |
| Was the 2022 emergency rule closing the Wedge to buoy lines "in place" on Dec. 29, 2022? | "In place" means "in effect"; the closure was not active then | "In place" includes rules authorizing future actions, not just currently restricting conduct | Rule was still "in place" for purposes of the exception |
| Should the district court’s ruling declaring the Final Rule void be reversed? | No, the rule is barred and not covered by statutory exception | Yes, the rule falls within the statutory exception | Yes, reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hill, 19 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1994) (protective notices of appeal can preserve appellate rights without prior SG authorization)
- Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392 (2019) (avoiding statutory interpretations that render provisions a nullity)
- Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024) (courts interpret statutes to avoid making subsections inoperative)
- HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass'n, 594 U.S. 382 (2021) (temporal continuity not required for extensions under certain regulatory statutes)