The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

September 15th, 2026

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the September 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-26-03-09)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Maine
    Friends of E. Bay v. Dep’t of Marine Res., 2026 ME 90 (Aug. 18, 2026).
  • The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine upheld an aquaculture lease granted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) to Acadia Aqua Farms. The lease, approved in October 2024, allowed Acadia to cultivate blue mussels and other shellfish on 19.71 acres of coastal waters in Eastern Bay. Friends of Eastern Bay challenged the lease. The group argued that DMR lacked the authority to approve the lease due to a permanently moored storage raft that stored unused aquaculture equipment. The court disagreed. The court noted that the legislature specifically granted DMR the authority to establish rules for noise, light, and visual impact criteria that applied to floating structures used for aquaculture operations, and the raft met this criteria. The court also rejected the argument that the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Bureau of Parks and Lands had leasing authority over the raft because it was related to “ancillary activities” rather than “aquaculture activities.” The court also dismissed the argument that the lease should have required a Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDS) permit due to potential PFAS discharges from pipes and power washing equipment due to insufficient evidence.


    Opinion Here


  • THIRD CIRCUIT

    Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Env’t Prot., No. 26-1252, 2026 WL 2639510 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2026).
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the Water Quality Certification issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) for the proposed expansion of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system. Under § 401 of the Clean Water Act, an applicant seeking a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in a discharge into navigable waters must obtain a Water Quality Certification from the state where the discharge will originate. NJDEP denied earlier applications, and in 2020, NJDEP again denied Transco’s application after New York denied a corresponding application without assessing the remaining water quality issues. In 2025, NJDEP approved Transco’s application. Environmental groups challenged NJDEP’s decision, arguing that 1) NJDEP arbitrarily reversed its prior decision without proper explanation; 2) it deferred monitoring and adaptive management requirements; 3) it inadequately explained how the project would comply with the state’s water quality standards; and 4) NJDEP deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment. The appellate court concluded that NJDEP did not arbitrarily reverse its prior decision, but it acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting certification before it finalized and approved material aspects of the Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Adaptive Management Plan. The court also found that NJDEP failed to adequately explain how the project would comply with the state’s water quality standards. Because those errors required vacatur, the court did not address the petitioners’ public participation argument.


    Opinion Here


  • FIFTH CIRCUIT

    La. Shrimp Ass'n v. Lutnick, No. 25-30408, 2026 WL 2547066 (5th Cir. Aug. 28, 2026).
  • In 2019, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a rule requiring all skimmer-trawl vessels 40 feet and longer to use turtle-excluder devices (TEDs), which allow sea turtles to escape from their nets. A commercial shrimping organization and three individuals involved in the Louisiana shrimping industry, challenged the rule, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious because it 1) failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision; 2) improperly disregarded the Louisiana shrimping industry's reliance interests; and 3) failed to properly consider public comments and scientific data. The district court upheld the rule and granted summary judgment in favor of NMFS. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that NMFS supported its decision with substantial evidence and reasonably explained its decision to issue the rule. The Fifth Circuit further found that NMFS reasonably considered the relevant costs, benefits, scientific evidence, public comments, and interests of the affected parties.


    Opinion Here


  • SEVENTH CIRCUIT

    Wisconsin
    White Sand Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Johnson, No. 26-CV-615-WMC, 2026 WL 2568840 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2026).
  • The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians closed its public boat launch due to the discovery of an invasive species, Eurasian watermilfoil, in White Sand Lake. The White Sand Lake Association subsequently constructed a boat launch on privately owned non-Indian land within the reservation. The Band issued citations to the association, alleging the association failed to obtain required tribal permits, and later obtained a tribal court injunction preventing use of the private boat launch. The plaintiffs challenged the tribal court’s jurisdiction in federal court. The district court granted a preliminary injunction to the association, finding that the Band likely lacked jurisdiction to block the use and operation of the boat launch, and stayed further tribal court proceedings. The court found that the Band had not adequately demonstrated tribal court jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act or that the launch threatened or directly affected the Band’s political integrity, economic security, health, or welfare, as required under Montana v. U.S. The court therefore granted a preliminary injunction staying the tribal court action and preventing enforcement of tribal regulations against the launch while the federal case proceeds.


    Opinion Here


  • Vill. of Shorewood v. Florsheim, 26CV1769 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Sep. 3, 2026).
  • Paul W. Florsheim, a dog walker, appealed a trespassing citation issued by the Village of Shorewood, Wisconsin. Florsheim had been warned multiple times not to walk his dog on the dry sand beach of Lake Michigan abutting a landowner’s property. Florsheim was found guilty of trespass at the municipal court level. Florsheim appealed, arguing that the state constitution and the public trust doctrine (PTD) protect the public’s right to walk on dry land between the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and the water’s edge. The circuit court agreed, noting the state holds the title to the beds of Lake Michigan up to the OHWM in trust for its citizens, and walking below the OHWM is an activity protected by the state’s PTD. The judgment for the Village was reversed.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    United Cook Inlet Drift Ass’n. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 25-5523, 2026 WL 2495367 (9th Cir. Aug 25, 2026).
  • The United Cook Inlet Drift Association and the Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund challenged Amendment 16 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries Off Alaska. Amendment 16 places the portion of the Cook Inlet beyond state waters and within the United States’ exclusive economic zone (Cook Inlet EEZ) under federal management. The plaintiffs argued that the Amendment conflicts with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and with several existing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations. They argued that NMFS improperly defined “fishery” by dividing management through the fish stock’s migratory range. However, the court held that it was proper for NMFS to “consider non-biological factors in defining the stocks of fish constituting a federal fishery,” and so the definition complied with the MSA. The court also held that the optimum yield assessment was consistent with the MSA. The court found using “maximum sustainable yield” to determine “optimum yield” was a permissible interpretation of the Act. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that the Amendment violated National Standard 2 of the MSA, as there was not an identified meaningful deviation from the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to show how NMFS did not satisfy National Standard 3. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling.


    Opinion Here


  • Oceana, Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 25-7689, 2026 WL 2495370 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2026).
  • Oceana, Inc., an environmental advocacy group, challenged recent amendments to fishery management plans for the Gulf of Alaska. Oceana argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) adopted amendments that violated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. However, the arguments failed due to a lack of standing. The court held that Oceana failed to show a traceable injury or that the organization would be able to gain relief from a favorable ruling. For Oceana to have been harmed, the court laid out a hypothetical seven part chain of causation that would need to occur. Many of these links were called “hypothetical or tenuous” and the court found that Oceana failed to offer adequate evidence to support the claims. For similar reasons, the court stated there was not a likelihood that the requested relief would redress the alleged injury. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case.


    Opinion Here


  • Oregon
    State v. Bordeaux, 352 Or. App. 327 (2026).
  • Perry and Cassidy Bordeaux, who managed a commercial fishing business and operated a dungeness crab fishing vessel, were charged with multiple criminal counts related to illicit fishing practices, including selling without a wholesaler's license and failing to complete fish-receiving tickets. Both defendants plead guilty but reserved two issues on appeal. On appeal, they claimed that the trial court improperly denied both their motion to suppress location data obtained from a tracking device and their demurrer, or request to dismiss the case. Much of the investigation relied on GPS data from the vessel monitoring system (VMS) mandated by the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The court held that the defendants consented to the use of the VMS data for state law enforcement purposes under federal law, and the disclosure of VMS data to state officials was permissible under the cooperative enforcement agreement between the state and federal agencies. However, the court agreed that the lower court improperly denied the plaintiffs’ demurrer because the prosecution failed to allege the required mental state for charges related to selling and purchasing fish without a license. The case was remanded to allow the defendants to withdraw their guilty pleas and for further proceedings regarding the remaining charges.


    Opinion Here


  • D.C. CIRCUIT

    Slash Creek Waterworks, Inc. v. Lutnick, No. 25-5042, 2026 WL 2482550 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2026).
  • Commercial fishers and buyers of South Atlantic red snapper challenged Amendment 59 to the South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The appellants argued that because the amendment established an annual catch limit based solely on red snapper landings and did not account for dead discards, it was contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the fishers and buyers appealed. The court found that the landings-only annual catch limit did not violate the MSA, as it did not require the catch limit to directly restrict dead discards. The court stated that the “landings-only overfishing limit indirectly accounted for bycatch [including dead discards], and that was enough to satisfy the statute.” The court also determined the 30-day deadline for challenging regulations under the MSA is not a jurisdictional limit, meaning the court could consider the merits of the case regardless of whether the challenge was timely. The court upheld the amendment.


    Opinion Here


  • For a Better Bayou v. FERC, No. 24-1291, 2026 WL 2484310 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2026).
  • In December 2021, two companies sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and pipeline. The terminal would be on the Calcasieu Ship Channel in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, and the natural gas pipeline would run 85 miles from East Texas to the terminal. After two environmental impact statements (EIS), an initial authorization order, and three rehearing orders, FERC approved the project in 2025. Individuals and advocacy groups challenged the approval, alleging multiple errors under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs argued that FERC failed to adequately consider the project's harms and benefits when granting the certificate under the NGA. However, the court upheld FERC's decisions, noting that it had provided reasonable explanations and that its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The petitioners argued that FERC’s cumulative effects analysis under NEPA was flawed. The court found that FERC had reasonably explained its methodology and reliance on updated data, and that its decisions were consistent with NEPA’s requirements. The court concluded that FERC’s authorization of the terminal and pipeline was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the petitions for review were denied.


    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 | |