Sea Watch International v. Mosbacher

762 F. Supp 370 (1991)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sea Watch International v. Mosbacher

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
762 F. Supp 370 (1991)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) (defendant) regulated the Mid-Atlantic surf-clam and quahog fisheries under a fishery management plan (FMP). In 1988, to both address and prevent overfishing, the Council proposed Amendment 8 to the FMP, which (1) implemented a system of individual transferable quotas (ITQ) applicable to each vessel fishing for surf-clams or quahogs; and (2) imposed additional restrictions on quahog fishing. Each ITQ permit holder was allotted a certain annual catch amount based on their assigned fixed percentage of the total aggregate catch quota for surf-clams and quahogs in the relevant fishing area. The ITQ’s fixed percentage was determined based on the vessel’s fishing history and the vessel’s size. An ITQ could be transferred to another vessel. Under the existing FMP, surf-clams were more heavily regulated than quahogs, resulting in an increasing number of vessels shifting into the less-regulated quahog fishery. Accordingly, Amendment 8 implemented additional quahog fishing restrictions to prevent expected future overfishing. Sea Watch International (SWI) (plaintiff) challenged Amendment 8, arguing that (a) the ITQ system exceeded the Council’s authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act); (b) the ITQ system violated National Standard 4 because, by tagging ITQs to vessels rather than fishermen, it treated similarly-situated fishermen differently and discriminated against small fishermen without large fleets; and (c) the additional quahog restrictions were arbitrary because they were issued in response to a potential future overfishing problem, not an existing problem. The Council moved to dismiss, arguing that (i) the ITQ system was tagged to vessels because there was a high rate of vessel turnover and only vessel fishing data, not individual fisherman data, was available; and (ii) establishing ground-rules for the quahog fishery before reasonably expected overfishing occurred was not arbitrary.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boudin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership