Oceana, Inc. v. Raimondo

Background

Oceana, a nonprofit ocean conservation and advocacy organization, sued Gina Raimondo, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The lawsuit challenged the agencies’ management of Pacific sardines under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The challenged rebuilding plan was called Amendment 18.

In an April 22, 2024 summary-judgment order, the court granted the parties’ cross-motions in part and denied them in part. The court held that the rebuilding target itself did not violate the MSA, but found that other parts of Amendment 18 violated the MSA, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Among other findings, the court concluded that NMFS had not shown that the plan would rebuild the sardine population within the statutory timeframe or prevent overfishing, had used the wrong scientific approach in setting an overfishing limit, and had failed to adequately analyze the plan’s effects on an endangered humpback whale. The court deferred deciding the remedy.

Vacatur and Remand

The court applied the presumption that unlawful agency action should be vacated, meaning set aside. It considered whether remand without vacatur was justified by balancing the seriousness of the agency’s errors against the disruptive consequences of setting the action aside. The court found the errors serious because the rebuilding plan did not comply with the MSA’s requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild the overfished stock. It also found the NEPA error serious because the environmental assessment omitted consideration of the rebuilding plan’s effects on an endangered species.

The court found no circumstances weighing against vacatur. It therefore vacated the portions of Amendment 18 that the earlier summary-judgment order found unlawful and vacated the environmental assessment prepared for Amendment 18 in its entirety. It remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings.

Deadline for Agency Action

The court ordered NMFS to prepare and implement a compliant Pacific sardine rebuilding plan and conduct the necessary NEPA analysis by June 1, 2025. The court rejected the defendants’ proposed two-year deadline, finding that the record did not show that two years was necessary. It also found that Oceana’s proposed deadline gave the agency a reasonable period to prepare the plan, conduct the environmental analysis, and obtain public comment.

Additional Relief

The court declined to dictate the scientific or technical method NMFS must use to set the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, or annual catch limit. It also declined to direct the agency’s specific process for setting the 2024–2025 annual specifications, finding that NMFS was obligated to comply with the earlier order and that additional instructions were not shown to be necessary.

The court did, however, order temporary protection against a gap in catch specifications. Upon expiration of the 2023–2024 annual specifications, the agency was ordered to implement interim specifications beginning July 1, 2024, that were no less restrictive than the 2023–2024 specifications. They were to remain in effect through August 1, 2024, unless the 2024–2025 specifications were implemented sooner. The agency also had to file a status report by July 26, 2024, addressing when the 2024–2025 specifications would be implemented.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Oceana’s motion to expedite as moot because the remedy decision had been issued. It also denied Oceana’s request for judicial notice of matters outside the record as unnecessary to the decision. The conclusion refers once to “NMBS” when ordering the interim specifications; elsewhere, the opinion identifies the responsible agency as NMFS.