State Of New York v. Ross
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-09380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In State of New York v. Raimondo, Judge Vyskocil dismissed a challenge to revised fishing-quota rules as moot and closed the case.
The dismissal affected the State of New York, Basil Seggos in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the federal defendants. The court did not decide the legality of the old fishing-quota rules; it dismissed the challenge because those rules had been revised and were no longer in effect.
What happened
State of New York v. Raimondo concerned New York’s challenge to federal rules setting commercial fishing quotas for states in the Atlantic summer flounder fishery. The challenged rules were revised and replaced while the case was pending.
The court ruled that the case was moot because the old rules were no longer in effect and the court could not provide the requested relief. It rejected New York’s arguments that the old rules might return or that the voluntary-cessation exception applied, and it declined to keep the case open administratively.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court stated that New York’s challenge to the newer rules belonged in a separate case that New York had filed.
The detailed version
- State Of New York v. Ross · No. 1:19-cv-09380
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
The State of New York, Basil Seggos as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation challenged federal rules concerning commercial fishing quotas for states in the Atlantic summer flounder fishery. The challenge concerned an October 2019 rule setting quotas for 2020 and 2021 and a 1993 rule establishing the allocation formula used to set those quotas.
While this case was pending, the challenged rules were revised. New York also filed a separate action challenging the revised allocation rule and the updated rule setting state-by-state quotas for 2021. The parties initially requested that this case be stayed. The court instead ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the case should not be dismissed as moot.
Arguments about mootness
Mootness means that a dispute is no longer live and that the court cannot grant effective relief. New York argued that a live controversy remained because the old rules could become operative if the court later vacated the newer rules in the separate action. New York also argued that the voluntary-cessation exception applied because the defendants could choose to reinstate the old rules. New York asked the court to administratively close the case without dismissing it and to allow reopening if the old rules were reinstated.
The defendants argued that the case was moot and that the plaintiffs’ arguments depended on speculation.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the challenged rules had been revised and were no longer in effect. Because the issues were no longer live and the requested relief could not be provided, the court concluded that the case was moot. The court explained that mootness deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its authority to decide the case.
The court rejected the possibility that the old rules might become operative based on the outcome of the separate action. It also rejected the voluntary-cessation argument. The court found no evidence in the record that the defendants intended to reenact the original rules after properly revising them. The defendants’ legal power to reinstate the rules, without concrete evidence of an intent to do so, was not enough to keep the dispute alive.
Disposition
The court declined the plaintiffs’ request to administratively close the case without dismissing it. It dismissed the action and requested that the Clerk of Court close the case. The court stated that any challenge to the rules currently in force belonged in the separate action filed by the plaintiffs.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.