Flaherty v. Bryson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the Service's responsibility to ensure fishery management plan is consistent with Magnuson-Stevens Act includes ensuring compliance with 16 U.S.C. § 1852 (h)
• noting that language of the challenged Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan “makes it clear that neither the Council nor NMFS made any effort to consider whether bycatch was minimized” and did “not reflect any examination or consideration” of whether the Amendment reduced bycatch
• considering challenge to final FMP amendment promulgated by NMFS and published in Federal Register
• upholding selection of a three-year annual average figure to estimate recent catch, where plaintiffs identified no “superior or contrary data” and the regional council gave four rationales, including fishing industry custom, an anomaly in the most recent single year, and creation of a buffer
• “While [the Service] may defer to the Council on policy choices, the [MSA] plainly gives [the Service] the final responsibility for ensuring that any FMP is consistent with the MSA’s National 17 Standards, and ‘the overall objectives’ of the Act.” (emphasis added
• “While . . . it is the Council’s role to name the species to be managed ‘in the first instance,’ it is [the Service’s] role, in the second instance, to ensure that the Council has done its job properly under the MSA and any other applicable law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).