- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- New York v. Raimondo
Collection
New York v. Raimondo
New York v. Raimondo ↗
1:21-cv-00304S.D.N.Y.6 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/29/2022
Decision
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.
The federal district court for the Southern District of New York rejected New York State’s challenge to a 2020 allocation rule for the summer flounder fishery. The court found that the allocation rule was consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court described as “without merit” New York’s argument that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ignored data that showed northward shift in the fishery (allegedly due to factors that included warming ocean waters). The court found that NMFS did consider the shift and properly weighed that fact against other considerations when adopting the 2020 allocation rule.
04/30/2021
Reply
Reply memorandum of law filed by defendants in further support of cross-motion for summary judgment.
–
04/16/2021
Brief
Memorandum of law filed in opposition to Commerce's motion for summary judgment, and in reply to Commerce's opposition to New York's motion for summary judgment.
–
04/02/2021
Brief
Memorandum of law filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.
–
New York v. Raimondo ↗
1:23-cv-008592d Cir.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/13/2023
Decision
Judgment of district court for the defendants affirmed.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a federal district court that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) or the Administrative Procedure Act when it set summer flounder quotas in a 2020 allocation rule. The court rejected New York State’s contention that by failing to allocate a higher quota to New York, the 2020 allocation rule ignored northward migration of the summer flounder population (which, New York alleged, was attributable in part to ocean warming) and was therefore inconsistent with four of the MSA’s 10 national standards for fishery management plans. The Second Circuit found that the 2020 allocation was “based upon the best scientific information available” (one of the factors), including information about the northward shift in summer flounder population, because the allocation included “surplus quotas” that increased New York’s quota from 7% to 12% during surplus periods. The Second Circuit also found that the NMFS could base its rule on “multiple sets” of “scientific information,” not just location data. The Second Circuit further found that the NMFS had explained its balancing of the three other standards that New York argued were inconsistent with the allocation. Those three standards were related to fair and equitable allocation of fishing privileges to residents of different states and consideration of efficiency and minimization of costs.