throbber
Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`PATRICK FEHILY and DAVID T.
`MALLEY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., in his
`official capacity as President of the
`United States; GINA RAIMONDO,
`in her official capacity as Secretary
`of the United States Department of
`Commerce; and DEB HAALAND, in
`her official capacity as Secretary of
`the United States Department of the
`Interior,
`
`
`No._________________________
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory
`and Injunctive Relief
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Jonathan Houghton, Pacific Legal Foundation, 3100 Clarendon
`
`Blvd., Suite 610, Arlington, VA 22201, for Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs Patrick Fehily and David T. Malley, by their attorney,
`
`Jonathan Houghton of Pacific Legal Foundation, allege the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Patrick Fehily and David T. Malley bring this action
`
`challenging the Presidential Proclamation of Defendant Joseph R. Biden,
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 41 PageID: 2
`
`Jr., designating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
`
`Monument under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (“Antiquities Act or Act”).
`
`See Presidential Proclamation No. 10287, 86 Fed. Reg. 57,349 (Oct. 8,
`
`2021).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Mr. Fehily and Mr. Malley are commercial
`
`fishermen who earn their living through the Atlantic Ocean’s fisheries.
`
`Both have invested heavily in commercial fishing vessels and permits
`
`that allow them to ply their trade in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
`
`3. Mr. Fehily started working on a fishing vessel in high school
`
`and has developed a deep appreciation for the fishing profession. After
`
`working in the industry for several years, he bought his own vessels and
`
`now owns four boats that currently fish for scallops, tuna, and swordfish.
`
`4. Mr. Malley has worked in the fishing industry for over 50
`
`years and recently bought his own fishing vessel to supplement his
`
`income during retirement. In doing so, he has spent hundreds of
`
`thousands of dollars preparing his vessel to be able to fish for tuna and
`
`swordfish in the Atlantic.
`
`5.
`
`But on October 8, 2021, the President issued Proclamation
`
`10287 designating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 41 PageID: 3
`
`National Monument (“Monument Designation”) under the Antiquities
`
`Act, closing off a vast area of the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing
`
`and threatening these fishermen’s way of life.
`
`6.
`
`Proclamation 10287 declares as a national monument
`
`approximately 5,000 square miles (3.2 million acres) of the Atlantic
`
`Ocean’s “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ)—an ocean belt beyond the
`
`territorial seas between 12 and 200 nautical miles off the Nation’s coasts.
`
`7.
`
`Proclamation 10287 includes not only physical canyons and
`
`seamounts as part of the Monument Designation, but also cites
`
`“ecosystems” and “biodiversity” within them as protectable “objects of
`
`historic or scientific interest” under the Act.
`
`8.
`
`The Proclamation also bans or phases out commercial fishing
`
`within the Monument Designation’s waters—waters that have been an
`
`important commercial fishery for decades—preventing fishermen like
`
`Mr. Fehily and Mr. Malley from using the fishery’s resources within the
`
`designated area to practice their trade.
`
`9.
`
`Proclamation 10287 exceeds the President’s authority under
`
`the Antiquities Act and violates the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 41 PageID: 4
`
`10.
`
`First, the Act delegates the President limited authority to
`
`designate national monuments on “land” owned or controlled by the
`
`Federal Government. 54 U.S.C. § 320301(a). But Proclamation 10287
`
`designates a national monument in an area of the Atlantic Ocean that is
`
`not on “land” under the Act. When Congress enacted the Antiquities Act
`
`in 1906, an ocean’s seabed or floor was not understood to be “land” as that
`
`term is used within the statute.
`
`11.
`
`Second, the Act also limits the President’s authority to declare
`
`national monuments on lands “owned or controlled by the Federal
`
`Government.” Id. Yet the portion of the Atlantic Ocean within the EEZ is
`
`not “owned or controlled by the Federal Government” under the Act’s
`
`ordinary meaning. The Federal Government enjoys limited authority to
`
`regulate within the EEZ, which does not constitute “control” under the
`
`Act.
`
`12.
`
`Third, the President may only designate as national
`
`monuments “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and
`
`other objects of historic or scientific interest[.]” Id. But “ecosystems” and
`
`the “biodiversity” contained within them are not “objects” that he can
`
`designate as, or as part of, a national monument. The Act’s language,
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 41 PageID: 5
`
`“objects of historic or scientific interest,” follows “historic landmarks” and
`
`“historic and prehistoric structures.” This language’s ordinary meaning
`
`shows that Congress sought to protect discrete physical “objects of
`
`antiquity”—not amorphous ecosystems or the biodiversity within them.
`
`13.
`
`Fourth, the Act also delegates to the President authority to
`
`reserve “parcels of land” as part of a national monument but limits that
`
`authority by mandating that the reserved land “shall be confined to the
`
`smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the
`
`objects to be protected.” Id. § 320301(b). Because “ecosystems” and the
`
`“biodiversity” contained within them are not “objects” protectable under
`
`the Antiquities Act, the Monument Designation’s area is not “confined to
`
`the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of
`
`the objects to be protected.” Once these unprotectable objects are excised
`
`from the Monument Designation, the Proclamation’s designation of a
`
`national monument encapsulating vast areas of the Atlantic Ocean’s
`
`seabed or
`
`floor—outside the designated physical canyons and
`
`seamounts—is ultra vires. The Proclamation is also ultra vires because
`
`it offers conclusory factual justifications for the Monument Designation’s
`
`size based on the “ecosystems” to be protected.
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 41 PageID: 6
`
`14.
`
`Finally, even if the Monument Designation is within the
`
`President’s authority, Congress did not delegate to the President the
`
`power to ban commercial fishing under the Antiquities Act. The Act’s
`
`delegation limits the President’s authority to declare a national
`
`monument and to reserve parcels of lands to be part of a monument; it
`
`does not give the President authority to make legislative rules for the
`
`“proper care and management” of a national monument. Congress
`
`charged the Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary
`
`of the Army—not the President—with making and publishing uniform
`
`regulations to implement the Act. 54 U.S.C. § 320303. Thus, by banning
`
`commercial fishing within the Monument Designation, the President has
`
`acted with no delegated authority from Congress and has made law in
`
`violation of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs Mr. Fehily and Mr. Malley thus seek declaratory
`
`and injunctive relief.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (subject
`
`matter); § 2201 (declaratory relief); and § 2202 (injunctive relief).
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 41 PageID: 7
`
`17.
`
`This Court can award costs and attorneys’ fees under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2412.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
`
`because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred
`
`within this judicial district, Plaintiff Patrick Fehily resides in this
`
`judicial district, and no real property affects the action.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Patrick Fehily is a commercial fisherman who
`
`resides in the State of New Jersey and has plied his trade in the Atlantic
`
`Ocean’s waters for over a decade.
`
`20. He owns and operates permitted commercial fishing vessels
`
`that participate in the Atlantic Ocean fisheries including—before
`
`Proclamation 10287’s ban on commercial fishing—within the Monument
`
`Designation’s waters.
`
`21.
`
`Proclamation 10287’s ban on commercial fishing within these
`
`waters has limited, and will continue to limit, Mr. Fehily’s ability to
`
`participate in the fishery within the Monument Designation’s waters.
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 41 PageID: 8
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff David T. Malley is a commercial fisherman who
`
`resides in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has worked in the
`
`fishing industry for over 50 years.
`
`23. He owns and operates a commercial fishing vessel that would
`
`participate in the fishery within the Monument Designation’s waters but
`
`for Proclamation 10287’s ban on commercial fishing.
`
`24. Neither Plaintiff Mr. Fehily nor Plaintiff Mr. Malley have
`
`been a party to any lawsuit challenging a Presidential Proclamation
`
`issued under the Antiquities Act.
`
`25. Neither Plaintiff Mr. Fehily nor Plaintiff Mr. Malley have
`
`been a member of any organization that has challenged a Presidential
`
`Proclamation issued under the Antiquities Act.
`
`Defendants
`
`26. Defendant Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the President of the United
`
`States. He is sued solely in his official capacity. In that capacity, he issued
`
`Proclamation 10287 which is the federal action challenged in this suit.
`
`27. Defendant Gina Raimondo is the Secretary of the United
`
`States Department of Commerce and is charged with administering
`
`Proclamation 10287. She is sued solely in her official capacity.
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 41 PageID: 9
`
`28. Defendant Deb Haaland is the Secretary of the United States
`
`Department of Interior and is charged with administering Proclamation
`
`10287. She is sued solely in her official capacity.
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Antiquities Act
`
`29.
`
`Congress’s goal in enacting the Antiquities Act was to
`
`establish a method for protecting ancient and prehistoric Native
`
`American archeological sites on federal lands from theft and destruction.
`
`See Ronald F. Lee, The Antiquities Act, 1900-06, in The Story of the
`
`Antiquities
`
`Act
`
`(2019),
`
`https://www.nps.gov/articles/lee-story-
`
`antiquities.htm. Congress thus delegated the President limited authority
`
`to establish national monuments on certain lands owned or controlled by
`
`the Federal Government.
`
`30.
`
`The Antiquities Act’s text can be broken down, as relevant
`
`here, into a delegation with five “discernible limits” on the President’s
`
`power to declare monuments. See Mountain States Legal Found. v. Bush,
`
`306 F.3d 1132, 1136–37 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (finding that judicial review is
`
`available to ensure the President has not exceeded his authority under
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 41 PageID: 10
`
`the Antiquities Act). Courts are “obligated to determine whether
`
`statutory restrictions have been violated.” Id.
`
`31.
`
`First, these objects must be “situated on land” as that term is
`
`used under the Antiquities Act. 54 U.S.C. § 320301(a). Consistent with
`
`Congress’s purpose of protecting historic Native American artifacts, this
`
`phrase includes Native American lands and federal territories. For
`
`example, most of the Southwest in 1906, where many objects of antiquity
`
`were located, was Native American land or federal territory.
`
`32.
`
`Second, this “land” must be those “owned or controlled by the
`
`Federal Government.” Id. The Antiquities Act thus does not authorize
`
`the President to designate monuments on privately owned land. Nor may
`
`a monument be designated beyond the Nation’s territory, such as the
`
`high seas. Cf. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked and
`
`Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 569 F.2d 330, 337–40 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding
`
`that the Antiquities Act does not apply to a shipwreck beyond the
`
`Nation’s territorial sea).
`
`33.
`
`Third, the President can declare as national monuments only
`
`“historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects
`
`of historic or scientific interest.” 54 U.S.C. § 320301(a).
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 41 PageID: 11
`
`34.
`
`Fourth, the President can reserve public lands to protect a
`
`national monument. Id. § 320301(b). But that reservation must be
`
`“confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
`
`management of the objects to be protected.” Id.
`
`35.
`
`Finally, the statute directs the agencies that manage a
`
`monument, not the President, to issue uniform rules and regulations to
`
`carry out the Act’s purposes. Id. § 320303. In other words, the Act limits
`
`the President’s authority to declare only what will be a national
`
`monument and what land is required for the proper care and
`
`management of the objects to be protected. See 54 U.S.C. § 320301(a)–(b).
`
`Congress authorized certain agency heads to determine how the objects
`
`are to be protected through regulations. See id. § 320303.
`
`Federal Authority Over
`the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
`
`In 1906, the United States’ territorial reach extended only
`
`36.
`
`three miles off the coast—the limits of the territorial sea. Beyond that
`
`was the high seas, which were international waters. Decades later, by
`
`proclamation, President Reagan asserted that the territorial sea extends
`
`up to 12 miles off the coast. See United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1, 8–9
`
`(1997).
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 41 PageID: 12
`
`37.
`
`President Reagan also issued a proclamation establishing an
`
`EEZ up to 200 miles from the Nation’s coasts, 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605
`
`(Mar. 10, 1983), but recognized that federal authority over this area is
`
`limited. See Statement on United States Oceans Policy, 1 Pub. Papers of
`
`Ronald Reagan at 379 (Mar. 10, 1983).
`
`38.
`
`Congress recognizes that the Federal Government has limited
`
`authority to regulate within the EEZ. For example, the Magnuson-
`
`Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (commonly known
`
`as the Magnuson-Stevens Act), regulates fishing in the EEZ while
`
`“maintain[ing] without change” the government’s limited authority over
`
`this zone “for all [other] purposes.” 16 U.S.C. § 1801(c)(1).
`
`39.
`
`Congress has also qualified the power delegated under the
`
`National Marine Sanctuaries Act by acknowledging the Federal
`
`Government’s limited authority beyond the territorial sea. See 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1435(a).
`
`40.
`
`International law, too, recognizes that Nations enjoy limited
`
`regulatory authority over the EEZ and do not have the level of
`
`sovereignty they enjoy within their territories. See Restatement (Third)
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 41 PageID: 13
`
`of Foreign Relations Law § 514 cmt. c (1987); see also The United Nations
`
`Convention on Law of the Sea art. 58 § 2.
`
`Federal Regulation of Ocean Fisheries
`
`41.
`
`Since 1906, Congress has exercised its limited authority to
`
`regulate the EEZ to protect the environment by adopting statutes
`
`specifically directed to this area of the ocean and establishing procedures
`
`to protect against excessive limitations on its sustainable and productive
`
`use.
`
`42.
`
`In 1972, Congress adopted the National Marine Sanctuaries
`
`Act, which aims to protect the EEZ’s sensitive areas when the United
`
`States has the power to do so. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431–1445b. This statute
`
`permits the Secretary of Commerce to designate marine sanctuaries
`
`within the EEZ based on twelve factors explicitly set out in the statute
`
`and only after providing notice to the public and consultation with state
`
`regulators. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1433–1434. If a marine sanctuary is established,
`
`the Regional Fishery Management Council established by the Magnuson-
`
`Stevens Act has the authority to regulate fishing as needed to protect the
`
`marine sanctuary. 16 U.S.C. § 1434(a)(5). The statute encourages all
`
` 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 14 of 41 PageID: 14
`
`public and private uses of the resources in a marine sanctuary that are
`
`compatible with the sanctuary’s protection.
`
`43.
`
`In 1976, Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1801, et seq. This is the primary law governing fisheries
`
`management in the EEZ. The statute is administered by eight regional
`
`fishery management councils, which must include representatives of
`
`federal and state agencies as well as the fishing industry. Under the
`
`Magnuson-Stevens Act, the regional councils, working with the National
`
`Marine Fisheries Service (which is within the Department of Commerce),
`
`prepare an annual stock assessment for each species commercially
`
`harvested in a fishery. If that assessment shows that a species is being
`
`overfished, the regional council sets an annual catch limit. Nearly 90% of
`
`fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act enjoy healthy,
`
`sustainable harvest levels below their annual catch limits.
`
`44.
`
`The regional councils also reduce fishing’s effects on
`
`ecosystems and incidental bycatch by regulating the gear used to fish.
`
`45. Unlike the Antiquities Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries
`
`Act refers to the “territorial sea . . . which is subject to the sovereignty of
`
`the United States” and “the [EEZ],” which is subject to “international
`
` 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 15 of 41 PageID: 15
`
`law,” rather than “lands owned or controlled” by the Federal
`
`Government. See 16 U.S.C. § 1437(k). Nor does the Magnuson-Stevens
`
`Act refer to “lands owned or controlled” by the Federal Government.
`
`Rather, it refers to the “EEZ” throughout the statute. See 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1801, et seq. Together, these statutes tailor the degree of environmental
`
`protection to the limited authority the Federal Government enjoys over
`
`the EEZ.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Georges Bank Fishery
`
`46.
`
`The Georges Bank is an elevated area of sea floor off the
`
`eastern seaboard that separates the Gulf of Maine from the Atlantic
`
`Ocean.
`
`47.
`
`Like much of the continental shelf off the United States’ East
`
`Coast, the Georges Bank’s edge is pockmarked by underwater canyons.
`
`48.
`
`For centuries, the Georges Bank has supported lucrative
`
`fisheries. The iconic fishing communities of New England and throughout
`
`the East Coast sprang up because of the value of these fisheries.
`
`49.
`
`Today, this area still supports significant fisheries for various
`
`species of fish and shellfish. These fisheries provide an important source
`
` 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 16 of 41 PageID: 16
`
`of income and employment for fishermen throughout the northeast,
`
`including Plaintiffs Mr. Fehily and Mr. Malley.
`
`50.
`
`Beyond Georges Bank lie several seamounts rising from the
`
`ocean floor.
`
`51. Deep-sea coral grows on both the canyons and seamounts.
`
`52.
`
`Fishermen are careful to avoid areas where coral is present
`
`because it severely damages their gear, costing the fishermen more than
`
`any benefit that could be obtained from fishing in the area.
`
`Existing Management of the Georges Bank
`
`53.
`
`The New England Fishery Management Council manages the
`
`Georges Bank fishery, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
`
`under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Since that statute was enacted, the
`
`Council has worked with industry, state and federal government, and
`
`nongovernment organizations to improve sustainability of the fishery.
`
`These efforts have included extensive regulation by the National Marine
`
`Fisheries Service of the equipment and methods the fishermen use to
`
`catch fish, and on the number of fish that can be caught within the
`
`fishery.
`
` 16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 17 of 41 PageID: 17
`
`54.
`
`The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages
`
`lobster fishing in the Georges Bank under an interstate compact. It too
`
`has worked with
`
`industry, state and federal government, and
`
`nongovernmental organizations to improve sustainability. Working with
`
`several industry organizations, the Commission has retired traps to
`
`reduce pressures on lobster stocks. These efforts have been successful at
`
`producing a record abundance of lobster in Georges Bank and the Gulf of
`
`Maine.
`
`President Obama Establishes the Northeast
`Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument:
`Presidential Proclamation 9496
`Before leaving office in 2016, President Obama issued a
`
`55.
`
`proclamation declaring the first iteration of the Northeast Canyons and
`
`Seamounts Marine National Monument. See Presidential Proclamation
`
`No. 9496, 81 Fed. Reg. 65,161 (Sept. 15, 2016) (Ex. A).
`
`56.
`
`The proclamation described the monument as consisting of
`
`two units: a Canyons Unit that included three large and two small
`
`underwater canyons covering nearly 1,000 square miles (around 640,000
`
`acres) of ocean, and a Seamounts Unit that included four seamounts
`
` 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 18 of 41 PageID: 18
`
`(underwater mountains) covering nearly 4,000 square miles (around 2.56
`
`million acres) of ocean. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,161–62.
`
`57.
`
`The proclamation also asserted that the canyons and
`
`seamounts, and the natural resources and ecosystems in and around
`
`them, are “objects of historic and scientific interest” justifying the
`
`monument’s designation. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,161.
`
`58.
`
`The three underwater canyons start at the edge of the
`
`continental shelf and drop thousands of meters to the ocean floor. The
`
`proclamation noted that deep-sea corals live in the canyon and form the
`
`foundation of a deep-sea ecosystem. The steep sides of the canyons
`
`concentrate phytoplankton, which draws fish, whales, and other ocean
`
`species. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,161–62.
`
`59.
`
`The four seamounts are part of a larger seamount chain
`
`formed by extinct volcanoes. The seamounts also support deep-sea coral
`
`and several ecosystems. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,162.
`
`60.
`
`The proclamation also asserted that the ecosystems in the
`
`huge area around the canyons and seamounts have drawn scientific
`
`interest. The ecosystem includes sharks, whales, turtles, and many
`
`highly migratory fish. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,162–63.
`
` 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 19 of 41 PageID: 19
`
`61.
`
`The proclamation gave no factual justification for why this
`
`huge section of the ocean is “land owned or controlled” by the Federal
`
`Government. Instead, it simply asserted that protecting the marine
`
`environment is in the public interest. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,163.
`
`62.
`
`The proclamation likewise failed to explain why this roughly
`
`5,000 square-mile (3.2 million acre) area is the smallest area compatible
`
`with protecting the monument. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,163.
`
`63. Nor did the proclamation provide any factual justification,
`
`other than conclusory statements, for how commercial fishing will
`
`degrade the canyons and seamounts or the ecosystems within the
`
`monument’s boundaries. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,162–63.
`
`64.
`
`The proclamation divided the authority to manage the
`
`monument between the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. The
`
`Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
`
`Administration (the parent agency of the National Marine Fisheries
`
`Service), was tasked with managing activities and species within the
`
`monument. The Secretary of Interior was tasked with managing the area
`
`under her department’s statutory authorities. Together, the Secretaries
`
` 19
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 20 of 41 PageID: 20
`
`were directed to prepare a joint management plan within three years and
`
`promulgate regulations to protect the monument. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,164.
`
`65.
`
`Recognizing that the Federal Government’s authority to
`
`regulate this area is limited by international law, the proclamation forbid
`
`the Secretaries from adopting and implementing any regulations which
`
`would exceed the Federal Government’s authority—even if necessary to
`
`protect the monument. In particular, the proclamation forbid the
`
`Secretaries from restricting the ships that can pass through the area or
`
`the planes that can fly over it or regulating any lawful uses of the high
`
`seas. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,164.
`
`66.
`
`The proclamation directed the Secretaries to specifically
`
`prohibit, among other things, the taking or harvesting of any living or
`
`nonliving resources within the monument and commercial fishing or the
`
`possession of commercial fishing gear. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,164–65.
`
`67.
`
`The proclamation also allowed the Secretaries, according to
`
`their unconstrained discretion, to permit certain activities. These
`
`included research and scientific exploration; recreational fishing;
`
`commercial fishing with some gear types for red crab, Jonah crab, and
`
`lobster, but only for the next seven years; other activities that have no
`
` 20
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 21 of 41 PageID: 21
`
`effect on any resource within the monument; and the construction and
`
`maintenance of underwater cables. 81 Fed. Reg. at 65,165.
`
`68.
`
`Proclamation 9496’s prohibition against all fishing except for
`
`lobster and red crab went into effect in November 2016.
`
`President Trump Modifies the Northeast Canyons and
`Seamounts Marine National Monument and Lifts the
`Commercial Fishing Ban: Proclamation 10049
`Reversing course and giving fishermen some relief, in 2020
`
`69.
`
`President Trump issued a proclamation, “Modifying the Northeast
`
`Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument,” rescinding the
`
`commercial fishing ban within the 2016 proclamation. See Presidential
`
`Proclamation No. 10049, 85 Fed. Reg. 35,793 (June 5, 2020) (Ex. B).
`
`70.
`
`Proclamation 10049 declared that some of the marine
`
`resources identified in Proclamation 9496 are not unique to the
`
`monument, are not of such scientific interest they merit additional
`
`protection, and are protected by other federal laws regulating commercial
`
`fishing. 85 Fed. Reg. at 35,794.
`
`71.
`
`Proclamation 10049 specifically noted that,
`
`[A]ppropriately managed commercial fishing would not put the
`objects of scientific and historic interest that monument
`protects at risk. Indeed, Proclamation 9496 allows for
`recreational
`fishing and
`further acknowledges
`that
`
` 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 22 of 41 PageID: 22
`
`“[t]hroughout New England, the maritime trades, and
`especially fishing, have supported a vibrant way of life, with
`deep cultural roots and a strong connection to the health of the
`ocean and the bounty it provides.
`85 Fed. Reg. at 35,793.
`
`72.
`
`Proclamation 10049 also specifically found that the “highly
`
`migratory” species are “not unique to the monument,” and that these
`
`species are already regulated by a “host of other laws enacted after the
`
`Antiquities Act . . . both within and outside the monument.” As evidence
`
`supporting this assertion, Proclamation 10049 cited:
`
`[T]he Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., the
`Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703–712, the National
`Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd–
`668ee, the Refuge Recreation Act, 16 U.S.C. 460k et seq., the
`Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., the
`Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the Oil Pollution Act,
`33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
`16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., and Title I of the Marine Protection,
`Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act), 33
`U.S.C. 1401 et seq.
`85 Fed. Reg. 35,794.
`
`President Biden Redesignates the Northeast Canyons and
`Seamounts Marine National Monument and Reinstitutes the
`Commercial Fishing Ban: Proclamation 10287
`A little over a year later, President Biden issued Proclamation
`
`73.
`
`10287 which redesignates the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
`
` 22
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 23 of 41 PageID: 23
`
`Marine National Monument and reinstitutes the commercial fishing ban
`
`within the Monument Designation. See Presidential Proclamation
`
`No. 10287, 86 Fed. Reg. 57,349 (Oct. 8, 2021) (Ex. C).
`
`74.
`
`Proclamation 10287 largely incorporates Proclamation 9496,
`
`including describing two units, the Canyons Unit and Seamounts Unit,
`
`which together include approximately 5,000 square miles of Atlantic
`
`Ocean. See 86 Fed. Reg. at 57,349.
`
`75.
`
`Like Proclamation 9496, Proclamation 10287 provides no
`
`factual justification for why this huge section of the Atlantic Ocean is on
`
`“land owned or controlled” by the Federal Government.
`
`76.
`
`Proclamation 10287 asserts that the canyons and seamounts,
`
`and the “deep-sea, pelagic, and other marine ecosystems they support,
`
`and the biodiversity they contain,” are “objects of historic and scientific
`
`interest” justifying the Monument Designation and its area. 86 Fed. Reg.
`
`at 57,349.
`
`77.
`
`Proclamation 10287 specifically cites the “need to protect the
`
`canyons, seamounts, and the attendant deep-sea, pelagic, and other
`
`marine ecosystems” as justification for the Monument Designation’s size
`
`as the “smallest area compatible with the proper care and management
`
` 23
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 24 of 41 PageID: 24
`
`of the objects of historic and scientific interest designated for
`
`protection[.]” 86 Fed. Reg. at 57,351.
`
`78.
`
`The Proclamation’s factual justifications, however, do not
`
`include an analysis or any other supporting evidence, other than
`
`conclusory statements, for why the Monument Designation’s boundaries
`
`require approximately 5,000 square miles of Atlantic Ocean to protect the
`
`canyons, seamounts, and ecosystems as part of the national monument.
`
`79.
`
`The Proclamation’s factual justifications also do not include
`
`an analysis or any other supporting evidence, other than conclusory
`
`statements, for how commercial fishing will degrade the canyons and
`
`seamounts or the ecosystems within the Monument Designation’s
`
`boundaries. See 86 Fed. Reg. at 57,351.
`
`80.
`
`Like Proclamation 9496, Proclamation 10287 divides the
`
`authority to manage the monument between the Secretaries of
`
`Commerce and Interior. The Secretary of Commerce, through the
`
`National Marine Fisheries Service, is tasked with managing activities
`
`and species within the monument. The Secretary of Interior is tasked
`
`with managing the area under its statutory authorities. Together, the
`
`Secretaries are directed to prepare a joint management plan by
`
` 24
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 25 of 41 PageID: 25
`
`September 15, 2023, and to promulgate regulations for the proper care
`
`and management of the monument. 86 Fed. Reg. at 57,352.
`
`81.
`
`Proclamation 10287
`
`reinstitutes
`
`the prohibition on
`
`commercial fishing within the Monument Designation’s waters. 86 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 57,351–52.
`
`82.
`
`The Proclamation gives warning to “all unauthorized persons
`
`not to appropriate, excavate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this
`
`monument and not to locate or settle upon any lands thereof.” 86 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 57,353.
`
`83.
`
`The Proclamation also includes a severability clause that
`
`provides: “[i]f any provision of this proclamation, including its application
`
`to a particular parcel of land, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this
`
`proclamation and its application to other parcels of land shall not be
`
`affected thereby.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 57,353.
`
`84. On October 18, 2021, Proclamation 10287’s prohibition
`
`against all fishing in the area except for lobster and red crab went into
`
`effect.
`
`
`
` 25
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 26 of 41 PageID: 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1: Map of Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
`Monument Credit: NOAA, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-
`england-mid-atlantic/habitat-conservation/northeast-canyons-and-
`seamounts-marine-national.
`
` 26
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02120-GC-TJB Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket