Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

State Officials Can’t Appoint Federal Officers in Gulf Coast Fishing Case

by March 25, 2024
March 25, 2024
State Officials Can’t Appoint Federal Officers in Gulf Coast Fishing Case

Thomas A. Berry and Alexander Khoury

Over the past several decades, many small‐​boat, family‐​owned fishing operations along the Gulf Coast have shut down due to excessive regulation. Ironically, these fishing communities were regulated out of existence by the very rulemaking body meant to ensure their longevity.

Fishing regulations for the Gulf region are developed and proposed by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council. The Gulf Council is composed of 22 voting members. Eleven of these members are nominated by governors of Gulf states in sets of three, from which the secretary of commerce must select one so long as the three nominees are statutorily qualified.

Because the members of the Council possess significant regulatory authority, they are officers of the United States who must be appointed pursuant to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The Appointments Clause sets out two modes of appointment: Principal officers must be appointed via nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, but Congress may choose to vest the appointment of inferior officers in the president alone, a department head, or a court of law.

In early 2023, multiple gulf fishing operations sued to challenge a rule that slashed their catch limits on a certain type of fish by 80 percent. They argued, among other claims, that the rule was void because the members of the Council were not appointed as the Constitution requires.

But the district court upheld the rule, concluding (among other things) that the eleven governor‐​nominated members were validly appointed as inferior officers. The court held that the members were appointed by the commerce secretary (a head of a department) and that Congress has more leeway to narrow down an appointer’s choices when the office being filled is inferior.

The fishers have now appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting them. In our brief, we argue that the district court erred in two important ways.

First, the district court wrongly concluded that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to greatly restrict the freedom of choice for appointers of inferior officers. The Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers in one of three entities, and Congress has full discretion to choose which of those three is best. But the clause does not allow Congress to place limits on how appointers may exercise their appointment power, outside of Congress’s authority to create office qualifications. Limiting an appointer’s choice to only three options is unconstitutional, especially when that limitation comes via a nomination scheme rather than via office qualifications.

Second, our brief argues that the district court erred by approving a scheme in which state governors select nominees for Council members. As demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), only constitutionally valid appointers may play a role in choosing officers of the United States. State governors are not mentioned in the Appointments Clause and thus are not valid participants in the process.

Finally, our brief argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hartwell (1868) does not change the outcome of this case. Hartwell concerned a unique officer structure that bears little resemblance to the Gulf Council’s appointment scheme.

The district court’s decision should be reversed and the appointments of the eleven council members discussed in our brief should be found unconstitutional, even if they may be appointed as inferior officers.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Cato’s Erec Smith: ‘DEI is Built Upon a Foundation Whose Very Mission is to Perpetuate Racism’
next post
House GOP threatens to hold AG Garland in contempt of Congress over recordings of Biden interview in Hur case

You may also like

Polling Shows the President’s Tariffs Are Unpopular, Sentiment...

April 29, 2025

The Good and Bad of the New Executive...

March 10, 2025

Friday Feature: Hope Education Consulting

April 11, 2025

Bitcoin: Problems and Prospects

July 29, 2022

Improving Youth Online Safety While Preserving Consumer Choice...

June 20, 2023

How Can You Miss a Deadline Before You Even...

May 24, 2023

American Compass Dystopia: Americans’ “Stagnant” Income

July 20, 2023

Fraud in the Covid Relief Programs

June 29, 2023

SCOTUS Upholds a Tax on Stock Ownership in...

June 20, 2024

Trump’s Gold Card Plan Has Benefits But Legal...

February 26, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Good Riddance to the Penny

      June 5, 2025
    • Oracle Fusion Testing: The UK Leader’s Playbook for Automation

      June 5, 2025
    • Blue state Republicans threaten rebellion if Senate changes key provision in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 5, 2025
    • Ricketts, Fetterman team up for crackdown on China’s attempts to purchase US farmland

      June 5, 2025
    • Hamas working to ‘sabotage’ Trump-backed aid group with ‘fake news’: Israeli official

      June 5, 2025
    • Longtime Trump loyalist flips on GOP’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,148)
    • Investing (2,009)
    • Politics (15,529)
    • Stocks (3,128)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved