A federal appeals court has overturned a federal rule that called for 24-hour Global Positioning System surveillance on charter fishing boats operating off Louisiana and other parts of the Gulf.
The U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals sided with charter boat companies on Feb. 23, finding that a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rule requiring that the boaters install tracking devices on their boats violated federal law.
“We conclude that, in promulgating this regulation, the government committed multiple independent Administrative Procedure Act violations and very likely violated the Fourth Amendment,” the court’s opinion states. “ We are therefore compelled to hold unlawful and set aside the regulation, reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment for the appellants.”
The court also found that the federal law in question, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, does not authorize such tracking rules and that the government failed to weigh the costs and benefits of the rule. The rule estimated that the cost of installing each tracking device for a small charter boat business was $3,000 initially, plus a monthly service fee of $40 to $75.
““What the Fifth Circuit has said here is that just because you are a regulated party, they can't track you all over the Gulf," John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), told the Louisiana Record. He added that sometimes charter boat captains use their boats for personal trips, such as sightseeing or taking their wives out for dinner.
Vecchione, who represented the charter boat owners in the class-action lawsuit, said the ruling should also help to protect other industries from federal regulatory overreach.
“Recreational boaters take a lot more fish than charter boaters, and NOAA could use the same theory they’re using here to issue permits to recreational fishermen and then track them,” he said. “So I think it has broad protection of freedom here.”
The NCLA represents more than 1,300 charter boat owners with fishing permits who were subject to the tracking regulation. The alliance’s legal arguments included search and seizure concerns related to the U.S. Constitution.