Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Maine Lobstermen’s Association v. National Marine Fisheries Service

About this case

Filing year
2021
Status
District court's grant of summary judgment to NMFS reversed and district court directed to enter summary judgment for the lobstermen on two counts and to vacate the biological opinion as applied to the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries and to remand the phase one rule to NMFS.
Docket number
22-5238
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes (US)
Principal law
United StatesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)United StatesEndangered Species Act (ESA)
At issue
Challenge by lobstering associations, a lobstering union, and Maine to the biological opinion for federal lobster fisheries as too restrictive.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
06/16/2023
District court's grant of summary judgment to NMFS reversed and district court directed to enter summary judgment for the lobstermen on two counts and to vacate the biological opinion as applied to the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries and to remand the phase one rule to NMFS.
In an appeal by lobstermen and the State of Maine, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court for the District of Columbia and vacated a biological opinion as it applied to the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. The appellate court also remanded a rule establishing a conservation framework intended to protect the endangered North Atlantic right whale. The reversal was based on the D.C. Circuit’s holding that the Endangered Species Act did not permit the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to “give the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to an endangered species by relying upon worst-case scenarios or pessimistic assumptions” when faced with uncertainty. The appellate court did not address the issue raised in the district court of whether NMFS adequately considered evidence that right whales were increasingly spending more time in Canadian waters due to climate change.
Decision

Summary

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

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Impacted group
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance