Why the Fishing Industry Fought: Inside the Battle Over Chevron

Wayne Reichle – who’s been in the fishing business his whole life – had never heard of the Chevron doctrine. That’s the two-step legal test that courts used for the past 40 years to decide whether a federal agency had the authority to make a regulation.

“No idea,” said Reichle, president of New Jersey-based Lund’s Fisheries. “Myself, and many, many fellow fishermen had no idea what the Chevron doctrine was.”

That changed after a group of fishermen challenged a federal regulation requiring the herring industry to pay for onboard federal observers. “I think there’s quite a few that know what the Chevron doctrine is today,” Reichle said.

This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring the limits of agency power. To what extent are federal agencies authorized to create and implement regulations that aren’t explicitly mandated by Congress? And what happens when an agency goes too far? In this episode, the story of the fishermen who fought back.

Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government affairs at Lund’s Fisheries, holds up a copy of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Kaelin says the Act doesn’t give the National Marine Fisheries Service authority to force the herring industry to pay for federal observers.

Matthew S. Schwartz

Featuring:

• Wayne Reichle, president of Lund’s Fisheries
• Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government relations at Lund’s Fisheries
• Ryan Mulvey, counsel with the Cause of Action Institute
• Erica Fuller, senior counsel with the Conservation Law Foundation
• Leif Axelsson, captain of the Dyrsten fishing vessel
• Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News