Commercial fishermen challenged a Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council amendment that slashed Greater Amberjack catch limits by approximately 80% for the commercial sector and 74% for the recreational sector. The fishermen argued that councilmembers were unconstitutionally appointed and sought to invalidate both Amendment 54 and its implementing regulation that curtailed their fishing quotas.
Judge Stephen Higginson wrote that while most councilmember powers don't constitute "significant authority," their veto powers over secretarial actions cross that threshold. "The Council's veto powers do confer significant authority—'enough to make Council members officers, not employees,'" Higginson said, citing the Third Circuit's analysis. However, the court severed these unconstitutional veto provisions from the statute while preserving the council's advisory role.
The case consolidated two lawsuits filed by commercial fishers George Arnesen, Jeffrey Bradley, Karen Bell, A.P. Bell Fish Company and William Copeland against Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and federal fisheries officials. The district court had found councilmembers were inferior officers but denied relief, concluding the constitutional defects didn't cause the plaintiffs' injuries since properly appointed officials independently approved the regulation.
The ruling represents the latest in a series of constitutional challenges to regional fishery management councils across multiple circuits. The decision preserves the Magnuson-Stevens Act's cooperative federalism framework while eliminating problematic veto powers, allowing the controversial fishing restrictions to remain in effect despite the constitutional violations.