New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick

── New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick ── Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 25-1212 25-1213 NEW ENGLAND FISHERMEN'S STEWARDSHIP ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, JERRY LEEMAN, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD LUTNICK, in the capacity of Secretary of Commerce; NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; EMILY MENASHES, in the capacity of Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NMFS; SAMUEL D. RAUCH, III, in the capacity of Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs at NMFS, Defendants, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge] Before Aframe, Lynch, and Dunlap, Circuit Judges. John M. Gore, with whom Donald F. McGahn, II, John Henry Thompson, Louis J. Capozzi, III, Julia Kazam, and Jones Day were on brief, for appellant New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association.  Daniel Halainen, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, with whom Adam R.F. Gustafson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Thekla Hansen-Young, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, were on brief, for appellees Howard Lutnick, National Marine Fisheries Service, Emily Menashes, and Samuel D. Rauch, III. J. Timothy Hobbs and K&L Gates LLP on brief for Seafood Harvesters of America, amicus curiae. April 30, 2026  LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This appeal stems from a dispute between the New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association ("Association"), the Secretary of Commerce ("Secretary"), and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") over the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and implementing regulations, which affected the Association's members by reducing catch limits for several species in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The Association here argues that the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and implementing regulations must be invalidated under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution because of the involvement of the advisory New England Fishery Management Council. We disagree and, on de novo review, hold the Association is not entitled to relief. I. We summarize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act's ("Act"), 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., fishery management scheme. We then describe the undisputed factual background which is relevant to the Association's request for injunctive and declaratory relief as to Framework Adjustment 65. A. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Act, the provisions of which govern this dispute, states thirteen Congressional findings at 16 U.S.C. § 1801(a) that explain its creation of a "national program for the conservation - 3 - and management of the fishery1 resources of the United States," which Congress found "[wa]s necessary to prevent overfishing, to rebuild overfished stocks, to insure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the Nation's fishery resources." 16 U.S.C. § 1801(a)(6). Congress further found that while fisheries faced threats of "increased fishing pressure, . . . inadequacy of fishery resource conservation and management practices and controls, [and] . . . habitat losses," id. § 1801(a)