•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Abstract

On August 7, 2000, a federal district judge in Seattle enjoined trawling for Alaska groundfish, one of the biggest commercial fisheries in the world. In September 1998, a federal district judge in Virginia issued an order increasing the quota for the summer flounder fishery by almost 400,000 pounds. In 1999 and 2000, a federal district judge in Hawaii issued a series of five court orders closing large portions of the Pacific ocean to fishing and establishing an evolving regime of incredibly specific fishery management measures. In 2002, a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued, then rescinded, an order imposing fifty specific management measures on the New England groundfish fishery ranging from bag limits, to closed areas, to observer coverage requirement. The growing number of court orders that appear to judicially manage our federal fisheries requires us to consider these remedies in light of Constitutional notions of separation of powers, as well as to consider their practical implications. Understanding these injunctions and what they mean requires an exploration of the roots of agency regulatory authority, a review of the statutes governing federal fisheries management, and a review of the recent lines of cases resulting in these surprising remedies. This paper will provide this overview, then consider the outcomes of these cases from the perspectives of the litigants, the public, and the resource.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.