The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

December 16th, 2024

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the December 2024 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-24-03-12)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Seafreeze Shoreside, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, No. 23-1853, 2024 WL 4986216 (1st Cir. Dec. 5, 2024).
  • The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s approval of Vineyard Wind, the first utility-scale offshore wind project in U.S. waters, located 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard. The court rejected challenges from commercial fishing entities and a nonprofit that claimed federal agencies failed to adequately consider the project’s environmental and industry impacts. The court agreed with the district court’s opinion that some plaintiffs lacked standing under the Endangered Species Act and that those claims were moot due to a superseding biological opinion. The court also held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s permitting decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court held that the agencies properly evaluated alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures while satisfying their obligations under various environmental laws.


    Opinion Here


  • Maine
    Thompson v. Keliher, No. 1:24-CV-00001-JAW, 2024 WL 4851243 (D. Me. Nov. 21, 2024).
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine dismissed a challenge to a new state rule requiring federally licensed lobstermen to install electronic tracking devices on their vessels. The Maine lobstermen argued that the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) rule violated constitutional rights against unreasonable searches, their equal protection rights, and the Maine Administrative Procedure Act. The court dismissed the state law claim on Eleventh Amendment grounds and rejected the constitutional claims, finding that the tracking requirement qualified as a reasonable administrative search of a closely regulated industry under Supreme Court precedent. While acknowledging the lobstermen’s legitimate privacy concerns about constant vessel monitoring, the court held that the rule was necessary to further the state’s substantial interest in managing the lobster fishery and was appropriately limited in scope. The court encouraged the lobstermen to appeal the Fourth Amendment issues to the First Circuit, recognizing the privacy implications of requiring 24/7 tracking of vessels that are used for both commercial and personal purposes.


    Opinion Here


  • Massachusetts
    Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Co., LLC v. Belesimo, No. 21-CV-11398-DJC, 2024 WL 4894639 (D. Mass. Nov. 26, 2024).
  • Cashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Co. (CDMC) filed a lawsuit against a former executive and another dredging company, Callan Marine, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets regarding the design of a trailing suction hopper dredge. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Callan Marine’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that emails on the Callan Marine servers did not reveal any of the trade secrets that CDMC alleged. Further, much of the information was publicly disclosed.


    Opinion Here


  • Rhode Island
    Gabriel v. Willis, No. 2023-349-APPEAL., 2024 WL 4898027 (R.I. Nov. 27, 2024).
  • A Narragansett landowner sued the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) after the department ordered him to restore his property due to violations of wetland ordinances. The landowner alleged trespass and other claims and asserted CRMC lacked jurisdiction. CRMC counterclaimed seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering the landowner to “cease and desist all activities” on his wetland property. The superior court granted the restraining order, finding the department had the authority to issue the order. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed.


    Opinion Here


  • SECOND CIRCUIT

    New York
    People by James v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 814682/2023, 2024 WL 4685935 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 31, 2024).
  • New York’s Attorney General brought a public nuisance action seeking to hold food and beverage manufacturers liable for plastic pollution that had accumulated in the Buffalo River, contending that they should be liable for the conduct of third parties who had discarded their products in the river. Additionally, the Attorney General asserted claims under state laws regulating unlawful deceptive acts or practices in commerce and governing restitution and damages for illegal or fraudulent business activity. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding the Attorney General failed to state claims under state law.


    Opinion Here


  • THIRD CIRCUIT

    New Jersey
    Casino Beach Pier, LLC v. Borough of Seaside Heights, No. A-1072-21, 2024 WL 4820596 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 19, 2024).
  • Three businesses on the Seaside Heights, New Jersey boardwalk challenged municipal ordinances adopted by the Borough of Seaside Heights designating two lots owned by another property owner as within the Borough’s Resort Recreational zone. The plaintiffs claimed that a 1910 map and prior deed restrictions established the beach as a dedicated public beach that could not be rezoned. The trial court disagreed, finding no evidence that the area in question was a dedicated public beach. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the ordinances were invalid due to defective notice. The appellate court affirmed on appeal.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    California
    Nat'l Fam. Farm Coal. v. Vilsack, No. 21-CV-05695-JD, 2024 WL 4951257 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024).
  • The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the USDA’s 2020 regulations governing genetically engineered (GE) organisms, finding that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to explain why it abandoned plans to regulate GE plants as noxious weeds and exempting GE plants created through conventional breeding without adequate scientific justification. While the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, it made the vacatur prospective rather than retroactive to avoid disrupting the agricultural sector, which in turn requires APHIS to reconsider its regulatory approach while maintaining the pre-2020 regulatory framework going forward.


    Opinion Here


  • Oregon
    Siletz Anglers Ass'n v. Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 336 Or. App. 272 (2024).
  • The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld temporary fishing regulations adopted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) that imposed stricter bag limits and closures on salmon fishing in coastal rivers during 2023. The court rejected challenges from fishing groups that argued ODFW exceeded its authority and failed to follow proper procedures in adopting the emergency rules. The court found that ODFW acted within its statutory mandate to protect native fish populations when it implemented the temporary measures in response to concerns about critically low Chinook salmon returns in several coastal basins, properly investigated conditions, and followed required procedures for temporary rulemaking.


    Opinion Here


  • D.C. CIRCUIT

  • District of Columbia
    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, et al., v. Regan, et al., No. CV 24-2194 (JEB), 2024 WL 5075828 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2024).
  • Two environmental groups brought a citizen suit under the Toxic Substances Control Act to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit fluorination practices that produce per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in plastics production. After initiation of the suit, the EPA began rulemaking to address the issue. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia therefore granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.


    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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2024 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 • 662-915-7775 | Problems?   Webmaster | |