Family Fishermen Challenge Illegal, Industry-Killing At-Sea Monitoring Rule from Department of Commerce

Arlington, VA (Feb. 19, 2020) – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) today filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of New Jersey family fishermen to block a new regulation that would force them to pay for third-party “at-sea monitors.”  The industry-killing rule—which was designed by the New England Fishery Management Council and promulgated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Department of Commerce—will require certain boats in the Atlantic herring fishery to carry “at-sea monitors” and at their own cost.

The agencies are forcing this requirement on the fisherman despite no statutory authority to do so and in addition to a separate, federally funded observing program.  The regulation also has the potential to modify other New England fishery management plans to allow for standardized implementation of additional industry-funded monitoring programs in the future.

“The herring trawl fishery has been vilified and over-regulated, with little demonstrated biological benefit to the herring resource, for too long.  If our vessels are forced to pay these at-sea monitoring fees, it may drive some of us out of business, as several boats have already been forced out of the fishery through reduced quotas and burdensome regulation,” said Jeff Kaelin, Director of Sustainability and Government Relations at Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., and representative for the Plaintiffs. “The herring trawl fishery is heavily monitored and regulated already—with everything from exclusion zones covering hundreds of square miles of ocean where we have historically fished, to move-along rules enforced when a mechanical failure may occur.  Monitoring New England’s and the Mid-Atlantic’s commercial fisheries is an inherent governmental function.  Herring fishermen have worked with the Councils for years in advancing conservation and the sustainability of the herring resource and fishery.  The Omnibus Amendment will not benefit those goals in any significant way and has been developed with no Congressional authority for doing so.  This is the last straw.”

At-sea monitoring is expected to cost over $700 a day.  Herring fishermen will suffer a drop in income projected as at least 20%, which will challenge companies to remain profitable and subsequently have the effect of driving up costs to lobster and crab fishermen throughout the region.  Monitors are required to live with the fishermen at sea, observe their activities, check their compliance with federal regulations, and file reports upon return to the dock.  This increased regulatory burden comes despite herring fishermen successfully complying with complex, multi-layered state and federal fishing regulations since the Atlantic herring fishery management plan was adopted in 1999.

As many stakeholders explained in the lead-up to the new regulation, regulators have no statutory authority to require these family fishermen to pay for their own policing.  And the process by which the government imposed the new rule for the herring fishery is procedurally suspect.  CoA Institute is stepping-in to stop this unlawful overreach.  If the industry-funding requirement moves forward, it will imperil one of America’s oldest and most-storied professions.

“The federal government finalized this regulation despite having no authority from Congress to do so.  Commercial fishermen and their friends have been raising concerns about the inadequate legal basis for industry-funded at-sea monitoring for years,” said CoA Institute Counsel Ryan Mulvey.  “But regulators have ignored these arguments.  We cannot let the administrative state push rules that go beyond its power and crush an already-beleaguered industry.  We are proud to represent America’s fishermen.”

A copy of the Complaint can be found HERE.

Plaintiffs are represented by CoA Institute counsels Ryan P. Mulvey and Eric R. Bolinder.

Media Inquiries: Contact James Valvo at or (571) 482-4182.

About Cause of Action Institute

CoA Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan government oversight organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public about how government accountability, transparency, and the rule of law protect liberty and economic opportunity.

# # #

Cause of Action Institute Files Appeal with D.C. Circuit to Secure FOIA Access to Internet Browsing History Records

Arlington, VA (Jan. 16, 2020) – Earlier this week, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Cause of Action Institute v. White House Office of Management and Budget, a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) lawsuit concerning access government officials’ Internet browsing histories.  The appeal seeks to overturn the district court’s determination that such records are outside the scope of disclosure, even when they are created on government-issued computers in the course of official business.  CoA Institute field the underlying lawsuit against the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) in June 2018.

Learn More

Cause of Action Institute Files Transparency Lawsuit Against California State Controller on behalf of

Arlington, VA (Jan. 16, 2020) – Last week, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed a California Public Records Act lawsuit against the California State Controller on behalf of its clients, and Adam Andrzejewski.  The lawsuit seeks to compel the agency to release records concerning state spending information, including records reflecting line-by-line vendor payments., founded and led by Mr. Andrzejewski, is the largest private repository of United States public-sector spending.  It has been trying to acquire checkbook data from the Controller for over six years, but it has faced continual delay, silence, and obfuscation.

Learn More

CoA Institute Urges Supreme Court to Rein In FTC’s Unconstitutional Pursuit of Money Damages

Washington, D.C. (November 13, 2019) – Today, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting cert petitions filed by AMG Capital Management and Publishers Business Services. The petitions urge the Court to review the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) claim that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes injunctions, also grants the agency power to obtain money damages, raid businesses, and impose asset freezes and receiverships.

Learn More

Cause of Action Sues Commerce Department for Failing to Release Section 232 Uranium Report

Washington, D.C. (Sept. 10, 2019) – Cause of Action Institute (CoA Institute) has stepped up its ongoing battle with the Department of Commerce (Commerce) by suing the agency for failing to respond to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking access to the agency’s final report to the President regarding its Section 232 investigation into the “Effect of Imports of Uranium on the National Security” and the Department of Defense’s response letter to that report. Learn More

Court Approves Consent Agreement in Federal Trade Commission v. D-Link Systems

WASHINGTON D.C. (August 6, 2019) – Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a consent order between the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and D-Link Systems, Inc. Cause of Action Institute has represented D-Link Systems throughout this matter. This joint resolution resolves the FTC’s allegations about the security practices D-Link Systems used for its products. D-Link Systems is an industry leader in Internet of Things (“IoT”) and networking solutions.

Learn More

CoA Institute Commends Bipartisan Group of Senators for Introducing FOIA Bill to Correct the Supreme Court’s Decision on Exemption 4

Washington, D.C. (July 24, 2019) – Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) commends Senators Grassley, Leahy, Cornyn, and Feinstein for introducing the Open and Responsive Government Act of 2019 (S. 2220), a bill that would correct the Supreme Court’s recent misinterpretation of Exemption 4 within the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  The bill would clarify that the term “confidential” in Exemption 4 only protects information that, if disclosed, “would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.”  Last term, in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader, the U.S. Supreme overturned that long-settled interpretation of the term “confidential.”  The bipartisan bill would re-establish the previous status quo.

Learn More