Florida fishermen challenge government limits on fish they can catch
Two Florida fishermen, Dominick and James Russo, are challenging recent government restrictions on fishing in the Gulf of America, specifically targeting Amendment 56. This amendment substantially reduced the commercial catch limit for gag grouper, citing concerns over fish populations. The fishermen argue that the rule was enacted by a council whose composition violates constitutional principles because its members are not fully removable by the president, raising questions about the legality of the process.They have filed a lawsuit asserting that the severe limitations harm their business, as gag grouper is highly valued by upscale restaurants.
The case has reached the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit,where a panel of judges heard arguments. The fishermen’s lawyers claim the rulemaking process has structural defects that should render Amendment 56 invalid, emphasizing that the council’s members have protected and indefinite tenure, and that the process bypassed proper executive authority. The justice Department defends the legality, stating the council’s recommendations are advisory and that the final decision was made by a Department of Commerce official who is subject to presidential removal.
During the proceedings, lawyers highlighted concerns about the constitutionality of the council’s structure and its authority, suggesting that the current process undermines federal oversight. The judges did not specify when they will issue a decision, but once a ruling is made, the losing side may appeal further or escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
A pair of Florida fishermen is challenging severe government-imposed limits on how much fish they can catch in the Gulf of America by going after the legality of the council that implemented the 2024 rule change.
Fishermen Dominick and James Russo filed a lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Amendment 56, which reduced the commercial catch limit for gag grouper in the Gulf of America by more than 85%, was implemented by a panel unconstitutionally wielding power from the executive branch. The amendment was approved by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which includes members who cannot be removed by the president, and then was given final approval by the assistant administrator for fisheries, who serves in the Department of Commerce and can be removed by the president. The fishermen have alleged the severe limitations have significantly hurt their business, saying the fish is highly sought after by high-end restaurants.
Recommended Stories
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit heard arguments in the case on Thursday, where the judges grappled with whether the amendment should be viewed as void because it was penned by the council. Lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the two fishermen, argued the “structural defects” in the rulemaking process should make Amendment 56 void.
“Governor-designated members serve at the pleasure of state officials alone, entirely beyond federal removal authority. The remaining members are removable only by a two-thirds Council vote — a self-reinforcing veto a determined minority can exercise indefinitely — or solely for financial conflicts of interest, leaving the President powerless to remove members for poor performance, policy disagreement, or loss of confidence,” lawyers for the fishermen argued in their brief to the appeals court.
“No exception applies: the Council performs executive rulemaking, not quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, and its members hold broad, ongoing authority with no defined endpoint,” the brief continued.
During oral arguments, Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer Michael Poon argued to the panel of judges that allowing the amendment to stand would be like “saying because the president signs legislation that it doesn’t really matter what happened in Congress.”
“And that’s what we have here. The council wrote the rule … and the secretary gets an up or down. That’s it,” Poon said.
The Justice Department defended the rulemaking process as lawful, arguing the council only issues advisory recommendations and that Amendment 56 should still be held as lawful because it was a Department of Commerce official, who is removable by the president, who ultimately issued the rule.
“For the past 50 years, the federal government has managed the nation’s fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with the benefit of these councils, and we’ve always construed their recommendations as advisory,” DOJ lawyer Daniel Halainen said to the panel.
The DOJ also noted in its brief that the fishermen “raise no complaints about the substance of the regulations” and only challenge the process of how the rule was implemented.
SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW WHETHER ALASKA OVERSTEPPED BY SEIZING PLANE OVER SIX-PACK OF BEER
The three-judge panel that heard the case included U.S. Circuit Judges William Pryor Jr., an appointee of former President George W. Bush; Jill Pryor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama; and Andrew Brasher, an appointee of President Donald Trump. The judges did not indicate when they would issue their ruling on the case.
Once the three-judge panel has issued its ruling, the losing side could appeal to the full bench of the 11th Circuit for review or to the Supreme Court.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
