The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

July 15th, 2025

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the July 2025 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-25-03-07)


Download Case Alert

  • FOURTH CIRCUIT

  • Maryland
    Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Md., et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Int., et al., No. CV SAG-24-3111, 2025 WL 1827963 (D. Md. July 2, 2025).
  • Thirty-four plaintiffs challenged federal approvals of the construction and operations plan for a wind farm off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland and Fenwick Island, Delaware. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland rejected the federal agencies’ motion to dismiss the case in its entirety. The court dismissed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Coastal Zone Management Act claims. The court found that claims related to violations of the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and National Historic Preservation Act may proceed.


    Opinion Here


  • FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Williams v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 24-60095, 2025 WL 1904153 (5th Cir. July 10, 2025).
  • An oil spill cleanup worker for the Deepwater Horizon disaster sued BP, claiming exposure to oil, dispersants, and other chemicals during cleanup resulted in his chronic sinus condition. A federal district court rejected the plaintiff’s expert witnesses, finding their reports on causation inadequate under the federal rules of evidence and the reliability standard established by court precedent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BP. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses.


    Opinion Here


  • Louisiana
    Louisiana Shrimp Ass'n v. Biden, No. CV 24-0156, 2025 WL 1783830 (E.D. La. June 27, 2025).
  • A commercial shrimping group and several plaintiffs challenged a 2019 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation requiring Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on certain skimmer trawl vessels operating in inshore waters. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the federal government. The court found that the agency’s final rule was not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, the rule did not violate the Commerce Clause nor the Major Questions Doctrine.


    Opinion Here


  • SEVENTH CIRCUIT

    Wisconsin
    Wis. Mfrs. and Com., Inc. v. Wis. Nat. Res. Bd., No. 2022AP718 (Wis. June 24, 2025).
  • In a lawsuit involving the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) categorization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision, holding that DNR acted in accordance with the law. Though DNR had not designated PFAS as hazardous substances in any regulation, DNR referred to PFAS as hazardous substances on its website and in letters to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently filed suit, claiming these communications were regulations in disguise and thus invalid. The county circuit court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. On review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found DNR’s communications were merely guidance documents, which described how DNR was going to apply the state Spills Law, as opposed to enforceable regulations. Furthermore, the court held that Wisconsin’s Spills Law does not require DNR to adopt regulations designating specific contaminants as hazardous substances before enforcing the law. So long as a contaminant satisfies the required characteristics of hazardous substances, it is considered a hazardous substance under the Spills Law, regardless of any DNR communications. Accordingly, the court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    Alaska v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 24-3148, 2025 WL 1912368 (9th Cir. July 11, 2025).
  • In December 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final decision to list the Arctic ringed seal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, concluding ringed seals will face an increasing degree of habitat modification through the foreseeable future from climate change. In March 2019, the State of Alaska petitioned to delist the Arctic ringed seal. NMFS denied the petition, finding the state did not present substantial new scientific information to merit delisting. A federal district court upheld the agency’s decision. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, deferring to NMFS’s interpretation of “complex scientific data.”


    Opinion Here


  • Idaho Conservation League v. Bonneville Power Admin., No. 23-593, 2025 WL 1763130 (9th Cir. June 26, 2025).
  • Environmental advocacy groups petitioned for review of Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) decisions to spend only about 10% of its excess financial reserves on measures to protect fish and wildlife in two fiscal years. The plaintiffs alleged the BPA’s actions were in violation of the Northwest Power Act (NWPA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the petitions were timely filed, and the cases were not moot. However, the court denied the petitions, finding that a provision of NWPA related to the treatment of fish and wildlife applied to the physical operation and management of hydroelectric facilities, not funding allocations for fish and wildlife.


    Opinion Here


  • Alaska
    United Cook Inlet Drift Ass’n, et al. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., et al., No. 3:24-CV-00116-SLG, 2025 WL 1807761 (D. Alaska July 1, 2025).
  • Several organizations challenged the National Marine Fisheries Service’s adoption of Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for Salmon Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the Coast of Alaska (Cook Inlet Salmon FMP). The plaintiffs alleged that the amendment violates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is limited to federal waters of Cook Inlet Salmon. According to the plaintiffs, the FMP measures should apply to salmon in state waters. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed the case, finding the MSA does not require NMFS to adopt an FMP that includes waters outside the Exclusive Economic Zone.


    Opinion Here


  • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    District of Columbia
    Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., et al., No. CV 22-1877 (RDM), 2025 WL 1917955 (D.D.C. July 11, 2025).
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not considering the benefits of designating critical habitat for the eastern black rail concurrently with listing the species as threatened under the ESA. The ESA requires the FWS to designate critical habitat concurrently with a species’ listing “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.” The FWS determined that it would not be prudent to designate critical habitat for the eastern black rail because such designation would publicize the location of the habitat and could lead to disturbances from overzealous birders. The Center for Biological Diversity challenged this determination, arguing that the FWS should have weighed this threat against the benefit of designation. Both parties then filed motions for summary judgment. The court held that the ESA requires the FWS to weigh the benefits of designation against the threats before deciding to exclude areas of critical habitat. The court rejected the FWS’s argument that, because the FWS did not designate any areas of critical habitat, the balancing test does not apply. The court also rejected the FWS’s alternative argument that it did weigh the benefits as not supported by the record. Accordingly, the court granted the Center for Biological Diversity’s motion for summary judgment and denied the FWS’s. The court vacated the FWS’s determination and remanded it for the FWS to apply the balancing test.


    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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2025 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 | Problems?   Webmaster | |