Oceana, Inc. v. Locke

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is rational for agency to believe zero-ACLs “will discourage sectors from targeting” stocks, “which, in turn, will likely reduce their catch levels”
• finding that sub-AMs are not mandatory when sub-ACLs are used in an FMP, even though the Guidelines provide that sub-AMs “should” accompany sub-ACLs
• stating that additional AMs are unnecessary if current plan \establishes an overall suite of accountability measures sufficient to prevent overfishing\
• stating that additional AMs are unnecessary if current plan “establishes an overall suite of accountability measures sufficient to prevent overfishing”
• observing that courts often find challenges to FMP amendments moot after “NMFS subsequently took the requested action through a new amendment or framework adjustment while the case was pending” (emphasis added)
• holding that prospective AMs were insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).