Stephen Nadeau

November 13, 2009

On October 23, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Rhode Island District Court's decision in a case challenging the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's 2006 regulation restricting lobster-trap allocations.

To be eligible for a lobster-trap allocation under the new regulation, an applicant must have held either a Department-issued commercial lobster license or a federal permit to fish for lobsters in Rhode Island's waters at some point from 2001 to 2003. The applicant must also have documented lobster catches in the area during that timeframe. The Department implemented the new regulation in response to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's recent changes to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for the American Lobster. The changes required affected states "to allocate lobster traps to fishermen based on each fisherman's documented lobster catch during 2001-2003," and were intended to curtail alarming overfishing of the lobster population in the waters off Massachusetts and Rhode Island. As a member of the fifteen-state Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact (ASMFC), Rhode Island's compliance with the Plan is mandatory under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993 (ACFCMA).

Local fishermen interpreted the Department's new regulation as a threat to their livelihoods; indeed, some commercial fishermen were unable to obtain lobster permits because of the new trap allocation scheme. The Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance, along with several individual fishermen, challenged the regulation in state court. The complaint contained two principal claims. First, the fishermen claimed that the regulation violates the state constitutional rights of equal access to fisheries and equal protection. Second, the fishermen claimed that the Department violated a Rhode Island statute that prohibits the use of retroactive control dates unless some federal law requires such use.

The Department removed the case to the federal court, which denied the fishermen's motion to remand. Both parties then filed motions for summary judgment, which the court resolved in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the fishermen argued that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the complaint alleged only state-law causes of action. The First Circuit, however, found that the complaint presented an embedded federal question: whether federal law required the Department to adopt retroactive control dates as part of its trap-allocation scheme. The court further found that resolution of this federal question was necessary to the resolution of the state claim, that the parties actually disputed how to properly resolve the federal question, that the federal government has a substantial interest in ensuring uniform compliance with interstate compacts, and that the exercise of federal jurisdiction in this case would not upset the balance of state and federal power. Accordingly, the First Circuit held that the district court had properly exercised jurisdiction in this case.

Regarding the merits of the fishermen's claims, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's analysis, noting that there was little to add to the lower court's well-reasoned opinion.

Addressing the state constitutional claims, the district court found that the public right of access to the fisheries is qualified by the legislature's constitutional duty to provide for the conservation and protection of those fisheries. The district court also found that the lobster-trap allocation scheme did not implicate a fundamental right and that the allocation scheme was rationally related to the Department's interest in protecting the lobster fishery. Accordingly, the district court held that the Department's regulation did not violate the Rhode Island Constitution.

The district court similarly resolved the fishermen's claim that the Department's regulatory scheme violated the statutory ban on the Department's use of retroactive control dates. The court noted that the statute contains an explicit exception to this ban where federal law requires the use of such dates, and found that the ACFCMA required ASMFC members to comply with the Commission's interstate fishery management plans. Accordingly, the district court found that federal law required the Department to adopt retroactive control dates as a part of its lobster-trap allocation scheme, and held that, therefore, the Department's regulation did not violate Rhode Island law. The district court also determined that there was no merit to the fishermen's claims that the regulation violated a number of other state statutes.

Having determined that the district court had properly exercised federal jurisdiction over the case and satisfactorily resolved the fishermen's claims against the Department, the First Circuit affirmed.

Sources

R.I. Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 17.

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5108 (2009).

R.I. Gen. Laws § 20-2.1-9 (2009).

R.I. Fishermen's Alliance v. Dept. of Envtl. Mgmt., No. 08-2390, 2009 WL 3401919 (1st Cir. Oct. 23, 2009).

R.I. Fishermen's Alliance, Inc. v. Dept. of Envtl. Mgmt., No. 07-230ML, 2008 WL 4467186 (D.R.I. Oct. 3, 2008).

Peter B. Lord, U.S. Judge Upholds Lobster Pot Limits, Providence Journal, Nov. 9, 2009, available at http://www.projo.com/news/content/FIsh_suit_11-09-09_L5GCR9L_v7.39856c3.html (last visited Nov. 9, 2009).