The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The federal regulations in question govern lobster catches in the EEZ -- an area of federal jurisdiction extending from 3 to 200 nautical miles seaward of the U.S. coastline. In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act was adopted to conserve and manage fishery resources. Regional fishery management councils, including federal and state officials and others, were authorized to adopt for each fishery requiring conservation a fishery management plan, and the statute provided for D to adopt implementing regulations based on notice and comment rule-making if the plan was consistent with a set of 'national standards' set forth in the statute. East coast lobsters are endangered. A plan was adopted in 1983, but 10 years later, a study revealed that lobsters were dangerously overfished. In December 1993, the Council circulated a draft amendment proposing that four areas be designated in the EEZ and subjecting each to different trap limits aimed at rebuilding stocks. D adopted regulations in the spring of 1994. In 1993, Congress adopted the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, which chartered an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission comprising representatives of states from Maine to Florida. In the absence of regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, D can adopt for EEZ waters a plan compatible with one adopted by the Commission for state waters. In 1996, the federal National Marine Fisheries Service proposed that the Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations be withdrawn and that new regulations be adopted under the authority of the new statute if and when a suitable state-waters plan was adopted by the Commission. The Commission sought comments on its so-called Amendment 3, which included more stringent limits on the number of lobster traps in areas 1 and 3. In September 1997, after further public hearings, the Commission's lobster management board voted to alter amendment 3 to move the boundary line between area 1 and area 3 from 30 to 50 miles offshore. This enlarged area 1, the area subject to the most stringent limits, thereby disadvantaging anyone who had sought lobsters within the area lying between the old line and the one now proposed. The Commission approved Amendment 3. The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating new alternatives for lobster regulation in federal waters; one of the alternatives was Amendment 3. Multiple hearings were held. Written comments were received from Ps attacking the expansion of area 1. In January 1999, a proposed federal rule was published implementing Amendment 3 for federal waters, and public comments were received, including several pertaining to the new line. The final EIS included a final regulatory flexibility analysis, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, concluding that those using lobster traps would be impacted in the short run but that the benefits of rebuilding stocks outweighed the harm. Final regulations were issued in December 1999. Ps brought suit in the federal district court to challenge the new regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of D. Ps appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.