National Fisheries Institute, Inc. v. Mosbacher

How courts have described this case

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

• referring to the SEFSC 2001 model and supporting literature as the “best available scientific information” on loggerhead turtles
• “Merely because [certain species] are also harvested beyond [United States waters] is no reason why the Secretary should not regulate them within the bounds of his authority under the [Magnu-son-Stevens] Act.”
• regulations that made distinctions based on the type of gear used were fair and equitable even though they imposed greater limits on commercial fishermen than on recreational fishermen
• regulations that made distinctions based on the type of gear used were fair and equitable even though they imposed greater limits on commercial fishermen than on recreational fishermen
• “the Court will not construe the Magnu-son[-Stevens] Act to tie the Secretary’s hands and prevent him from conserving a given species of fish whenever its very nature prevents the collection of complete scientific information”
• upholding amendment that conserved billfish despite burdening commercial fishermen

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).