Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron deference – a legal precedent stemming from the 1980s that gave federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting congressional statutes.
That move, according to Robert Smith, a partner at Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.-based law firm K&L Gates, could turn the U.S. seafood industry into a more litigious environment in the near future.
“In the short term, you are going to see a lot more uncertainty and a lot more litigation,” Smith said at the 2025 Seafood Expo North America during a presentation titled “The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine and the Legal Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture.”
Chevron was overturned as a result of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case in which herring fishermen from the U.S. state of New Jersey challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule forcing them to pay out of pocket for mandatory onboard observers – sometimes more than USD 700 (EUR 640) per day, the plaintiffs claimed.
The Supreme Court used the case as a chance to review Chevron, overturning it with a 6-3 vote. The fishermen’s challenge of the rule, meanwhile, is ongoing.
Smith’s fellow partner at K&L Gates, Tim Hobbs, said that more cases like Loper Bright are now likely to arise in the U.S. seafood industry, as challenges to statutes that once were nearly impossible to pursue now have better odds at succeeding.
“If you’re a member of the seafood industry looking to challenge a particular action by an agency, you have more opportunity now to look at what that agency is doing and say, ‘Do they really have the authority to take this particular action?’” Hobbs said. “Previously, I advised clients that even if an agency was wrong, you’re likely to lose in court. Now, it’s closer to 50-50.”
To increase the odds of a successful challenge, clients can also “court shop” in order to find a judge who may be more amenable to their dispute, Smith added.
“If you want a more conservative interpretation of a statute, you might turn to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, or if people want a more liberal interpretation, you might see more activity in the Ninth Circuit,” Smith said. “All this stuff will eventually make its way up to the Supreme Court to decide a variety of statutory interpretations while they work this thing out.”
While the move has been celebrated by the seafood industry, conservationists have decried its possible effects on standing conservation and sustainability statutes.
“Our justice system at the highest level failed our oceans and the American people. This decision shows that politically appointed judges could be making the final call instead of experts in government agencies,” Washington, D.C., U.S.A.-based ocean conservation nonprofit Oceana said. “This puts at risk government decisions not just on fisheries but also on clean water, clean air, public health, food safety, and protecting wildlife.”
Challenges to statutes that cite the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in particular are likely to increase, Smith said.
“There are a lot of cases dealing with the ESA that relied heavily on Chevron, specifically dealing with statutory interpretation in that context” he said.
Challenges to statutes that rely on the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) could see a spike, too.
“The MSA does have a 30-day statute of limitations for most things the NMFS does, though, so there is a limited window to bring certain challenges to agency rulemaking," Smith said.
Hobbs and Smith were clear, however, that federal agencies will still receive deference from the courts in most cases.
“So much of the regulations and agency work happens at a level of scientific and technical expertise. They’ll still get deference by the courts,” Smith said. “For example, fisheries and management councils’ scientific analysis of catch limits, bycatch regulations, and more are all based on heavily scientific and technical expertise, and of course, courts will still generally defer to an agency’s expertise in that field.”
Additionally, past cases that cited Chevron are likely also safe from reconsideration.
“Just because the court was changing the framework for analysis going forward does not mean that prior cases under that Chevron framework are now invalid,” Hobbs said.
Even though the overturning of Chevron will affect the seafood industry, the move’s effects will be much more disruptive in industries like oil and gas, Smith said.
“For oil refineries and power plants, this is going to be groundbreaking because most of their restrictions deal with the Clean Air Act, which is almost exclusively statutorily based,” Smith said.
