Background
Commercial fishers challenged the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s Amendment fifty-four, which reduced catch limits for Greater Amberjack. Plaintiffs argued Council members were unconstitutionally appointed officers and that their removal restrictions were invalid. The district court found Council members were inferior officers but denied relief, citing lack of proximate cause and a quorum of validly appointed members.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the Lucia test to determine if Council members exercise significant authority. It found that the Council’s veto power over the Secretary’s actions, such as repealing plans or establishing limited-access programs, conferred significant authority, making them officers. However, the court severed this veto power as unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause. With the veto power removed, the remaining powers did not rise to the level of significant authority. The court also found no standing or proof of harm regarding the removal restrictions.
The Council’s veto powers do confer significant authority—enough to make Council members officers, not employees.
Arnesen v. Lutnick, No. 24-60055, at 13 (5th Cir. Mar. 27, 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling clarifies the constitutional status of Regional Fishery Management Council members, limiting their authority to advisory roles once veto powers are severed. It upholds the validity of the challenged fishery management rule while remanding jurisdictional questions regarding the amendment itself.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download