State of New York v. Ross

Background

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 governing commercial summer-flounder, also called fluke, quotas among mid-Atlantic states. The defendants were Gina M. Raimondo, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries.

New York challenged the 2020 Allocation Rule and the 2022 Specifications Rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The 2020 Allocation Rule used the earlier state-by-state allocation formula for coastwide quotas up to 9.55 million pounds. For quota above that amount, it used a modified formula that gave New York a larger percentage than under the earlier formula. New York argued that the rule should rely more heavily on current information about the northward shift in summer-flounder distribution and should account for resulting costs and inefficiencies.

The parties agreed that New York’s challenge to the 2022 Specifications Rule depended on the validity of the 2020 Allocation Rule. They agreed that a ruling upholding the 2020 rule would also resolve the claims concerning the 2022 quotas.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the agency’s actions under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a court must set aside agency action if the agency relied on improper factors, entirely failed to consider an important part of the problem, gave an explanation contrary to the evidence, or reached an implausible result. Review is narrow and deferential, particularly when the agency is applying technical expertise to fishery management.

Because the parties presented the case through cross-motions for summary judgment and the challenge involved the administrative record, the court treated the dispute as a legal review of the agency’s decision rather than as a trial over disputed facts.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the National Marine Fisheries Service did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s national standards. The agency had discretion to balance the standards rather than maximize one standard at the expense of the others.

For the requirement to use the best scientific information available, the court found that the agency had considered evidence concerning changes in fish distribution, biomass, and fishing effort. The agency chose to use historical landings data for quotas up to 9.55 million pounds while using other information to modify the allocation of quota above that level. The court also found that New York had not identified newer landings data that the agency had ignored. The agency considered, but rejected, New York’s proposal to suspend state-by-state allocations temporarily while collecting additional data.

For the requirement that allocations be fair and equitable, the court found that the agency had considered New York’s concerns along with the long-term economic effects of existing allocations on other states and fishing communities. The agency’s choice to preserve historical access and infrastructure while providing more equity to northern states in years of higher quotas was supported by the administrative record.

The court also rejected New York’s arguments concerning efficiency and costs. The agency had considered whether using fish-location data would reduce trip lengths and other costs, but it also considered that shifting quotas could move activity toward smaller, less-efficient vessels and might increase overall costs. The court concluded that the agency had considered these issues and was not required to prioritize them over competing statutory objectives.

The court further found that the agency had considered the importance of the fishery to fishing communities and had addressed safety at sea. The court noted that the safety argument had been raised by Suffolk County, an amicus, rather than by a party, but it nevertheless concluded that the agency had considered safety adequately.

Holding and disposition

The court found that the agency had considered all ten Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards, evaluated alternatives, addressed New York’s proposals, and provided a rational explanation for adopting the 2020 Allocation Rule. The court therefore held that the rule was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.

The court denied New York’s motion for summary judgment and granted Commerce’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the relevant docket entries and close the case.