New York v. Raimondo

84 F.4th 102

STATE of New York, Basil Seggos, as Commissionerof the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gina RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as Secretaryof the United States Department of Commerce,United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,National Marine Fisheries Service, a/k/a NOAA Fisheries, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 22-1189

August Term 2022

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Argued: May 24, 2023

Decided: October 13, 2023

Stephen J. Yanni, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Judith N. Vale, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief) for Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Lucas Issacharoff, Assistant United States Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief) for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.

Hope Senzer Gabor, Assistant County Attorney, for Dennis M. Cohen, Suffolk County Attorney, Suffolk, NY, for Amicus Curiae Suffolk County.

Before: Wesley and Park, Circuit Judges.^*

Wesley, Circuit Judge:

The federal government uses a fishery management plan to conserve and manage summer flounder, also known as fluke, off the Eastern Seaboard. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the "MSA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., that fishery management plan must account for ten "national standards." Each national standard prioritizes a different objective: from preventing overfishing, to using accurate scientific data, to promoting efficiency, to protecting existing fishing communities, and more.

Eleven states participate in the summer flounder fishery. The fishery management plan includes annual commercial quotas for each state, which determine how much summer flounder that state's fishermen can catch. One of those states, New York, brought this action against the National Marine Fisheries Service (the "NMFS")—the federal agency responsible for the summer flounder fishery—and several related federal entities. New York argues that in setting the current quotas, the NMFS failed to account for the long-term movement of summer flounder northward, closer to New York's shores. New York claims the quotas violate several of the MSA's national standards as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. The district court rejected that argument; it granted summary judgment to the NMFS.

We conclude that in setting each state's summer flounder quotas, the NMFS properly weighed the relevant statutory considerations. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

BACKGROUND

Summer flounder are a sought-after commercial fish. Their habitat spans the Eastern Seaboard, but during winter months they concentrate in offshore waters managed by the federal government through the NMFS.¹ Commercial fishermen in eleven coastal states, from Maine to North Carolina, fish these waters.

The NMFS regulates the commercial summer flounder catch through a fishery management plan. Congress, through the MSA, requires the fishery management plan to account for ten national standards. Those national standards are set forth in full below, but at a high level, they seek to conserve and manage the fishery for future generations. See 16 U.S.C. § 1802(5) (defining "conservation and management"); id. § 1851(a) (requiring "conservation and management" measures to comport with the ten national standards).

The summer flounder fishery incorporates a quota system designed to prevent overfishing. Each state is allocated a quota percentage of the total summer flounder catch for the year. Any summer flounder that are "landed" (brought ashore) in a state count towards that state's annual quota—regardless of where those fish were caught. For example, fishermen from Virginia catch summer flounder near Long Island, New York, "land" those fish back in Virginia, and those fish count towards Virginia's quota.

The NMFS first incorporated quotas into the fishery management plan in 1992, with a slight adjustment in 1993 (the "1993 Allocation Rule"). At that time, each state's quota was based on how much summer flounder that state had landed from 1980 through 1989. From 1993 onward, New York received authorization for approximately 7% of each year's total catch. States with higher historical landings received higher quotas: for example, Virginia received approximately 21% of each year's total catch.²

Since 1993, however, summer flounder populations have shifted steadily northward, closer to the coast of New York. In response, NMFS undertook a rulemaking process to reassess and potentially revise the quota system. It completed that process in 2020, when it promulgated a new rule (the "2020 Allocation Rule") that New York now challenges. See 85 Fed. Reg. 80,661 (Dec. 14, 2020) (codified at 50 C.F.R. § 648.102(c)(1)).

The 2020 Allocation Rule retains each state's original quota from the 1993 Allocation Rule—but only up to the first 9.55 million pounds of summer flounder caught. See 50 C.F.R. § 648.102(c)(1)(i). Past that point, the 2020 Allocation Rule subjects any additional catch to a new, evenly divided, "surplus" quota—by which every state receives approximately 12% of any additional catch during a good fishing year.³ See id. § 648.102(c)(1)(ii). Consequently, under the 2020 Allocation Rule, New York is entitled to its historical 7% of the first 9.55 million pounds of coastwide catch, and 12% of any surplus beyond that.

New York filed comments regarding the 2020 Allocation Rule; it protested that it should receive a higher quota percentage because summer flounder populations had relocated closer to its own shores. New York claimed that the NMFS had ignored scientific evidence showing the summer flounder movement. The NMFS rejected New York's comments and explained why the quotas crafted in the 2020 Allocation Rule were preferrable.

After the NMFS finalized the 2020 Allocation Rule, New York filed this action against the NMFS and related federal entities. New York maintained its argument that the 2020 Allocation Rule, as well as annual implementation rules promulgated thereunder,⁴ fail to account for the summer flounder's long-term relocation. New York claimed that by doing so, the NMFS disregarded four of the MSA's ten national standards—which required the agency to use the "best scientific data available" and to promote efficiency and fairness among fishermen.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Vyskocil, J.) denied New York's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion. The district court concluded it was "clear from the administrative record that NMFS appropriately considered all the ten national standards and, in exercising its discretion to formulate the 2020 Allocation Rule, did not violate the MSA." New York v. Raimondo, 594 F. Supp. 3d 588, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). New York appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

"On appeal from a grant of summary judgment involving a claim brought under the [APA], we review the administrative record de novo without according deference to the decision of the district court." Town of Southold v. Wheeler, 48 F.4th 67, 77 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007)). Nevertheless, our review in this case is narrow, and deferential to the NMFS's expertise as an agency. See id. That is because MSA provides that courts review NMFS rulemakings under the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard. See 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f). Under that standard, an agency need only "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

B. Validity of the 2020 Allocation Rule

Fishery management plans "shall be consistent with" the MSA's ten national standards. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a). Those standards are:

(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.

(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.

(3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.

(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.

(5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.

(6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.

(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.

(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing

...