The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

January 15th, 2025

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the January 2026 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-26-03-01)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Brox v. Woods Hole, No. 24-1063, 2026 WL 73794 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2026).
  • In January 2022, the Woods Hole, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Steamship Authority (Authority) implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees to reduce infection and transmission. The Authority gave employees six weeks to receive at least one dose or to request a medical or religious exemption. Eleven employees sought religious exemptions and were denied. After the policy took effect, seven of the employees were terminated and the other four employees maintained their jobs by becoming vaccinated. Collectively, the employees brought suit against the Authority. The employees sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause because it was not generally applicable, as it prohibited religious conduct (religious exemptions) while permitting comparable secular conduct (medical exemptions). They contended the policy created an individualized exemption process and favored secular exemptions over religious exemptions. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief. Applying rational basis review, it concluded the policy was neutral and generally applicable and rationally related to the Authority’s interest. On appeal, the First Circuit reached the same conclusions and affirmed.


    Opinion Here


  • THIRD CIRCUIT

    New Jersey
    Matter of New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot.'s Apr. 17, 2023, 55 N.J.R. 661(B) “Environmental Just. Rules,” No. A-2936-22, 2026 WL 20879 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 5, 2026).
  • In September 2020, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Environmental Justice Law, declaring that New Jersey residents have a right “to live, work, and recreate in a clean and healthy environment.” In practice, the law requires certain facilities to seek permits, provide an environmental justice impact statement, and propose measures to avoid or reduce negative environmental impacts. To implement the statute, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) adopted the “Environmental Justice Rules.” The plaintiffs, a group of private organizations, challenged the Environmental Justice Rules, arguing that NJDEP exceeded its statutory authority, the rules were unconstitutionally vague, and the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, rejected these arguments and affirmed the new rules. The court found the rule’s definitions and procedures to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. Furthermore, the court noted the rules were sufficiently clear to give notice to the public while still providing NJDEP the necessary flexibility to evaluate individual permit applications to protect public health.


    Opinion Here


  • FOURTH CIRCUIT

    Maryland
    Sierra Club v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. CV DLB-25-1627, 2025 WL 3706503 (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2025).
  • In 2020, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a biological opinion (BiOp) regarding petroleum extraction in the Gulf, near Louisiana. The Sierra Club challenged that opinion as understating the danger to endangered species, among other defects. The court ruled in favor of Sierra Club, and NMFS issued a new BiOp in May 2025. This BiOp was also challenged by the Sierra Club. Chevron and other oil and gas interests intervened and filed a motion to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court of Maryland to the Western District of Louisiana. The court weighed the plaintiff’s choice of venue, convenience, and justice, ultimately deciding those interests weighed in favor of keeping the case in Maryland.


    Opinion Here


  • SIXTH CIRCUIT

    Michigan
    Enbridge Energy, Ltd. P'ship v. Whitmer, No. 1:20-CV-1141, 2025 WL 3707609 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2025).
  • Enbridge Energy sued the Governor of Michigan and the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources over the state’s revocation of an easement for the “Line 5” pipeline, which partially runs underwater through the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge alleged that the 1992 Pipeline Safety Act and the foreign affairs doctrine preempted the state from shutting down the pipeline. The court agreed with Enbridge, stating that “the text of the Pipeline Safety Act and the caselaw leave no doubt that it is the exclusive responsibility and prerogative of the federal government to regulate interstate pipeline safety to the exclusion of any competing regulation by the states.” The court also found that Michigan’s actions were preempted by the foreign affairs doctrine, as a shut down would interfere with trade between the U.S. and Canada. Accordingly, Enbridge’s motion for summary judgment was granted. An appeal with the Sixth Circuit has already been filed. Other litigation over the pipeline is pending, including a case before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, which will determine whether the state Attorney General’s lawsuit belongs in state or federal court.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    Cruise Lines Int’l Assoc., Inc. v. Suganuma, 9th Cir., No. 25-8058 (Dec. 31, 2025).
  • On May 27, 2025, the governor of Hawaii signed into law amended Act 96, which was to take effect starting January 1, 2026. Originally, Act 96 authorized a tax placed on hotels and short-term vacation rentals, but the Act was amended to apply to cruise lines. Under the amendments, cruise lines must pay an 11% tax on all gross rental proceeds from the “cruise fare,” which includes the full cabin price a passenger pays, including all mandatory onboard fees, but does not apply to optional charges or services. The new tax is projected to generate roughly $100 million per year for environmental and climate resilience projects. A coalition of local businesses, cruise lines, and later the federal government sought a preliminary injunction of the Act. They claimed the Act violates the Tonnage Clause of the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1884, arguing Hawaii cannot impose taxes or fees on vessels using the state’s ports and navigable waters of the United States without congressional approval. On December 23, 2025, the district court denied preliminary injunctive relief, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. The plaintiffs appealed, and on December 31, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court granted an injunction pending the appeal, temporarily blocking enforcement of the Act.


    Opinion Here


  • California
    Inst. for Fisheries Res. v. Cont'l Tire the Americas, LLC, No. 23-CV-05748-JD, 2025 WL 3719044 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025).
  • The Institute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations brought suit against tire companies for the use of the chemical 6PPD in vehicle tires, which can degrade into 6PPD-q, a compound toxic to protected salmonid fish species. The plaintiffs argued the runoff from these tires carrying 6PPD-q has resulted in an unlawful “take” of protected salmon under the Endangered Species Act. One defendant, Sumitomo Rubber USA, LLC, moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable because it exited tire manufacturing in the United States and claims that exit is permanent. It also argued the complaint targets only the manufacture and distribution of tires containing 6PPD, rather than ongoing discharges of 6PPD-q from tires already in use. The district court denied summary judgment, explaining that the plaintiffs’ theory focuses on continuing runoff harms tied to existing tires. Furthermore, the court noted that environmental cases like this do not end when the activity stops, rather the court looks to see if there can be any effective relief.


    Opinion Here


  • Oregon
    Newport Fishermen's Wives, Inc. v. United States Coast Guard, No. 6:25-CV-02165-AA, 2025 WL 3705495 (D. Or. Dec. 22, 2025).
  • In the wake of a fishermen’s death during the turbulent winter dungeness crab season on the central Oregon coast, a rapid response search and rescue facility was opened by the US Coast Guard in 1987. In 2014, fears that the Newport, Oregon facility would be closed helped spur the creation of laws mandating notice and comment periods for air facility closures. In 2025, the Coast Guard began reducing helicopter availability in support of border security operations. This culminated in removing Coast Guard signage and effectively ceasing operations in the fall of 2025, ahead of the dungeness crab season. The Newport Fishermen’s Wives, along with various interested government groups, sued the Coast Guard to maintain the air facility. The court found that the Coast Guard had not followed the procedural requirements of the 2014 law. The court issued a preliminary injunction to resume operations in Newport until the case is decided.


    Opinion Here

Subscribe to the Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.

Subscribe to the Case Alert

Case Alert Archive

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2026 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 | Problems?   Webmaster | |