For nearly 50 years, herring fishermen in the United States have been required to take federal inspectors with them when they go out to sea. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has run out of money and is requiring fishermen to pay the salaries of the inspectors. "'We don't mind taking observers, you know, we have for decades now,' said Stefan Axelsson, a third-generation herring fisherman. 'But to be told to pay for it just isn't right'"(ABC). Many fishermen believe that this could put them out of business, and are fighting against this policy in the Supreme Court.
The main conflict before the Supreme Court is whether it should overrule or clarify the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which established the Chevron deference. The Chevron deference is a legal principle that requires courts to follow the interpretation of an agency when a law is unclear, as long as it is reasonable. The "unclear" law is the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which is the primary law that governs fisheries in US federal waters and aims to create more stability by preventing overfishing, protecting the habitat of the fishies, and making sure that seafood is safe to eat. While the MSA allowed the NOAA to require inspectors on fishing boats, nothing in the MSA says anything about transferring the cost of inspectors to the fishermen.
The D.C. Circuit ruled that because the Magnuson-Stevens Act was ambiguous regarding how the industry should be funded and whether Congress intended to allow regulators to require fishermen to pay for the inspectors. However, the fishermen see this as an unlawful overreach and would force them to give up a lot of their earnings. It also means that an agency could do whatever it wanted to as long as Congress never told them they couldn't, which is kinda ridiculous.
This case could impact the balance of power between Congress and administrative agencies. If the Chevron deference is upheld, agencies would have more power in interpreting laws and making decisions without authorization from Congress. If it isn't upheld, Congress would have more power in deciding how agencies implement laws. Personally, I believe regulations and inspectors are necessary for protecting federal waters and ensuring that the seafood we eat is safe. However, I do not believe that fishermen should pay to have mandatory inspectors, and I think that agencies have too much power in interpreting the law.
- Lawrence Wang
https://causeofaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022.11.02-Loper-Bright-Case-Summary.pdf
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act | NOAA Fisheries
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
4 comments:
Interesting conflict. Purely from a policy standpoint the NOAA's decision makes no sense. It's not like the NOAA was subsidizing a part of the fishing industry. The government was forcing fishers to have these monitors in the first place. Some may liken this to the ACA (health insurance being mandatory) and say that the government is entitled to tax goods and services. That said, this is a federal agency and not an actual legislative body so any such "tax" should not be levied (until congressional action Like Lawrence said).
There are probably also methods that are much more efficient and economical than a monitor that is paid $700 to watch the fishermen(maybe cameras located around the fishing boat). Or maybe a monitor who works for the fishermen (and is paid by them) but is also partly subsidized by the NOAA to carry out monitor duties.
At any rate, this could all be solved with a higher NOAA budget. Marine life and water bodies are vital to the nation's ecological health and sustainability goals and the NOAA is a vital instrument in the pursuit of those goals.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/fishery-observers
This case seems to have the potential to have a very large impact on the scope of our national government, as it will determine the power federal agencies will have. When you combine this with the elastic clause, this would give the national government the power to set rules on almost any aspect of our lives that they want. For example, the national government has used the elastic clause to expand their powers to be able to regulate environmental protection, and if this case rules in favor of the government, federal agencies will then be given an ever further reach into that aspect of our lives. In my opinion, I do not believe that forcing the fisherman to pay the observers' salaries is fair as that additional cost it can constitute a significant portion of their earnings. While I do believe regulations are necessary, and therefore the agency was fair to put them in place in the beginning, the function of the US government should be to benefit the economy, not harm it, and therefore the added requirement should not be upheld.
(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fishermens-supreme-court-fight-government-monitors-make-big/story?id=102060183)
The fact that forcing fishermen to pay for monitors has become a possibility is surprising to me, and seems like an overreach of federal powers. This situation reminds me of a similar situation in Printz v. US, in which Congress ruled that the federal government could not order state legislatures to complete its tasks for it (specifically, this case clarified that state's officers couldn't be forced to conduct background checks). Following this precedent, the situation seems even more illogical, but we will see how it ends up.
Post a Comment