Alliance Against IFQs v.
Brown case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
84 F.3d 343
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs, a
group of people and organizations that suffered from the economic
impact of certain fishery regulations, challenged a judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of Alaska, which
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Secretary of
Commerce and others. The district court held that the fishery
regulations at issue were a permissible exercise of authority by
defendant secretary.
FACTS: Plaintiffs, a group of people and organizations that suffered from the economic impact of certain fishery regulations, brought a suit against defendants, the Secretary of Commerce and others. Plaintiffs alleged that the regulations for implementing a fishery management plan in and near Alaska waters were arbitrary and capricious or that they were violative of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1801 et seq. In particular, plaintiffs challenged the method of allocating individual fishing quotas. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the court affirmed the judgment.
HOLDING:
The court held that the regulations promulgated by defendant secretary were not arbitrary and capricious.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that defendant secretary adequately considered "present participation in the fishery" as required by 16 U.S.C.S. § 1853(b)(6)(A). The court determined that the allocation of quota shares to vessel owners did not violate the statutory requirement of 16 U.S.C.S. § 1851(a)(4) that the allocation be fair and equitable to all fishermen. The court also found that the decision to include a certain town on a list of primary ports was appropriate.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the district court's decision, which granted summary judgment for defendants, the Secretary of Commerce and others. The court concluded that the fishery regulations at issue were not arbitrary and capricious. The court found that it could not overturn defendant secretary's decision regarding the allocation of individual fishing quotas on the ground that some parties' interests were injured.
FACTS: Plaintiffs, a group of people and organizations that suffered from the economic impact of certain fishery regulations, brought a suit against defendants, the Secretary of Commerce and others. Plaintiffs alleged that the regulations for implementing a fishery management plan in and near Alaska waters were arbitrary and capricious or that they were violative of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1801 et seq. In particular, plaintiffs challenged the method of allocating individual fishing quotas. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the court affirmed the judgment.
HOLDING:
The court held that the regulations promulgated by defendant secretary were not arbitrary and capricious.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that defendant secretary adequately considered "present participation in the fishery" as required by 16 U.S.C.S. § 1853(b)(6)(A). The court determined that the allocation of quota shares to vessel owners did not violate the statutory requirement of 16 U.S.C.S. § 1851(a)(4) that the allocation be fair and equitable to all fishermen. The court also found that the decision to include a certain town on a list of primary ports was appropriate.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the district court's decision, which granted summary judgment for defendants, the Secretary of Commerce and others. The court concluded that the fishery regulations at issue were not arbitrary and capricious. The court found that it could not overturn defendant secretary's decision regarding the allocation of individual fishing quotas on the ground that some parties' interests were injured.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment