Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Litigation

Maine Lobstermen’s Association, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

About this case

Documents

Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/30/2023
Decision
Motion to stay execution of the mandate denied.
The federal district court for the District of Columbia denied a motion by intervenor conservation groups to stay execution of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate directing the court to enter summary judgment for the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and to vacate a biological opinion concerning lobster and Jonah crab fisheries and their impacts on the North Atlantic right whale. The district court concluded that it did not have discretion to stay execution of the mandate pending the resolution of all claims in a related case pending before the district court. The court found, moreover, that such a stay would not be warranted.
09/09/2022
Decision
Defendants' and intervenor-defendants' motions for summary judgment granted.
The federal district court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge by two lobstering associations, a lobstermen’s union, and the State of Maine to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS’s) biological opinion that concluded that operation of federal lobster fisheries would not jeopardize the North Atlantic right whale. The plaintiffs alleged that the biological opinion overstated risks posed to the right whale and overregulated the lobstering industry. The court found that the biological opinion and related actions were not arbitrary and capricious. Among the points addressed in the decision was the plaintiffs’ contention that NMFS did not take into account evidence that climate change was causing right whales to spend more time in Canadian waters. The court “acknowledge[d] that NMFS could have more comprehensively addressed” this evidence, also noting that “[i]f new data continue supporting this trend, the agency may in the future need to either update its modeling or say more about why it has not.” However, at this juncture, the court found that NMFS “considered the relevant data and offered a rational and peer-reviewed explanation for its approach.”

Summary

Challenge by lobstering associations, a lobstering union, and Maine to the biological opinion for federal lobster fisheries as too restrictive.