Little Bay Lobster Co. v. Evans

Federal regulations limited the lobster-fishing activity that could occur in certain geographically defined areas in waters off the eastern coast of the United States. The United States Department of Commerce (the agency) proposed a new rule that expanded the size of the restricted area in order to better conserve the lobster population. The agency presented the proposed rule for public comment. Several commenters objected to increasing the size of the restricted area because it would harm their ability to make a living catching lobsters. Some commenters submitted proposed, less restrictive alternative boundary lines. The agency finalized the proposed rule without making changes. The agency’s final statement acknowledged the commenters’ objections but did not specifically address whether the agency had considered the less restrictive boundary options or other ways to reduce the rule’s economic impact on commercial lobster fishers. Little Bay Lobster Company, Inc. (Little Bay) (plaintiff) brought suit against the agency’s secretary, Donald Evans (defendant), challenging the rule. Little Bay claimed that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious because the agency had not responded to the comments on the proposed rule, considered the proposed alternatives, or explained why it had rejected alternatives that would have caused less economic harm to Little Bay. The district court granted summary judgment to the agency. Little Bay appealed.