The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

August 15th, 2025

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the August 2025 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-25-03-08)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Ass'n To Pres. & Protect Loc. Livelihoods v. Sidman, No. 24-1317, 2025 WL 2304915 (1st Cir. Aug. 11, 2025).
  • Several businesses challenged a Bar Harbor, Maine ordinance that limits the number of cruise ship passengers who may disembark in the town to 1,000 per day. The businesses alleged that the ordinance violated both the U.S. Constitution and the Maine Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled in favor of the town on all but one claim. The court found the ordinance to be a lawful exercise of home rule authority under the Maine Constitution. Further, the district court held that the ordinance was not preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, nor did it violate the Commerce and Due Process Clauses. On appeal, the First Circuit largely affirmed the district court’s ruling but vacated and remanded a portion of the ruling on the Dormant Commerce Clause claim, finding that the district court should reevaluate whether the ordinance results in an excessive burden on interstate commerce.


    Opinion Here


  • Rhode Island
    Relentless, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Dep’t Commerce, et al., No. CV 20-108 WES, 2025 WL 1939025 (D.R.I. July 15, 2025).
  • On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island held that the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) could require fishing vessels to pay for at-sea monitors as part of its Atlantic herring fishery management plan under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The district court upheld the rule in 2021, exercising deference under Chevron, a legal precedent under which courts defer to agency interpretations of federal statutes. The First Circuit affirmed. On review, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the Council’s requirement violated the MSA. On review, the district court found that the MSA not only allowed fishery management plans to require at-sea monitors but also authorized sanctions for fishing vessels who did not pay for at-sea monitors. The court concluded that such sanctioning power would be pointless if fishery management plans could not require fishing vessels to pay for at-sea monitors. Furthermore, the court found that the MSA provides a large amount of discretion in developing fishery management plans, and the Council’s requirement did not exceed this discretionary authority. Therefore, the court concluded that the Council’s requirement that fishing vessels pay for at-sea monitors did not violate the MSA.


    Opinion Here


  • FOURTH CIRCUIT

    North Carolina
    Defs. of Wildlife v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 4:24-CV-73-BO-BM, 2025 WL 2078309 (E.D.N.C. July 23, 2025).
  • Several conservation groups challenged a pilot watershed restoration project in the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, alleging that planned algaecide application would negatively impact migratory birds in the refuge. The group alleged that U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) violated the Refuge Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other federal laws in authorizing the project. The U.S. Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina vacated the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact prepared by the FWS, agreeing that the agency unreasonably failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The court also found the agencies should have prepared a compatibility determination for the project under the Refuge Act.


    Opinion Here


  • South Carolina
    Abel v. Lack's Beach Serv., No. 2023-000569, 2025 WL 1943929 (S.C. Ct. App. July 16, 2025).
  • The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Lack’s Beach Services’ post-trial motions in a wrongful death suit. The jury had found that Lack’s negligence caused Abel’s fiancée’s fatal drowning, awarding compensatory as well as punitive damages. Consequently, Lack’s filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a new trial absolute, and reconsideration of the punitive damages award. The trial court denied these motions, leading to this appeal. On appeal, the court of appeals found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Lack’s violated the acceptable standard of care for lifeguarding by allowing lifeguards to rent beach equipment while on duty. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Lack’s JNOV motion. The court also found that the admission of 2018 sales data, testimony that employees performed beach chair rental duties 99.995% of the time, and the revocation of Lack’s United States Lifesaving Association certification was not unduly prejudicial and therefore did not support the award of a new trial. Finally, the court found that the degree of reprehensibility of Lack’s actions and the ratio of the punitive damages to compensatory damages supported the jury’s award of punitive damages.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    California
    Garner, et al., v. Phoenix Air Group, Inc., No. 24-CV-07720-AGT, 2025 WL 1953698 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2025).
  • The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Phoenix Air’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs could pursue a wrongful death action under admiralty law. Following a fatal plane crash during naval training exercises, the flight crew’s families filed a wrongful death suit under admiralty law. Phoenix Air filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that admiralty jurisdiction does not apply and, even if admiralty jurisdiction did apply, that state workers’ compensation laws displace admiralty law remedies. First, the court found that admiralty jurisdiction applied because the crash occurred in navigable waters, the crash could have disrupted maritime commerce, and the flight bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity as a part of naval training exercises. Then, the court held that, under the Supremacy Clause and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state workers’ compensation law could not prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing federal maritime law claims. Accordingly, the court denied Phoenix Air’s motion to dismiss.


    Opinion Here


  • Hawaiʻi
    Kāpaʻa, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. CV 25-00209 MWJS-WRP, 2025 WL 2300605 (D. Haw. Aug. 8, 2025).
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi held that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) cannot reopen the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument following a presidential proclamation without engaging in notice and comment rulemaking. In April, President Trump’s “Unleashing American Commercial Fishing in the Pacific” proclamation directed the Commerce Secretary to publish new rules to “amend or repeal all burdensome regulations” on commercial fishing. NMFS subsequently sent a letter to permit holders advising them that previously closed areas in the marine monument were now open for commercial fishing. The court found that the letter constituted a final agency action and that NMFS’s failure to follow the proper rulemaking procedures violated the Administrative Procedure Act.


    Opinion Here


  • ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

    Glynn Env't Coal., Inc. v. Sea Island Acquisition, LLC, No. 24-10710, 2025 WL 2112517 (11th Cir. July 29, 2025).
  • Environmental non-profit organizations filed a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit alleging a property owner illegally filled in wetlands on St. Simons Island, Georgia. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling. However, before the case returned to the district court, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Sackett v. EPA, which redefined the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. Based on the new Waters of the United States (WOTUS) scope, the district court dismissed the complaint finding the wetland was not a WOTUS subject to the CWA jurisdiction under the new Sackett test. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed and affirmed the dismissal of the case.


    Opinion Here


  • Florida
    Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem, No. 25-22896-CV (S.D. Fla. August 8, 2025).
  • In July, environmental groups filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief claiming an immigration detention facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz” was being built and operated in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws. On August 7th, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop work on the facility for two weeks. In granting the TRO, the court cited a “sufficient likelihood of success” on the plaintiffs’ claim that the facility required an environmental review and the chance for irreparable harm if construction continues. The judge also noted the balance of equities and the public interest favored granting the order.


    Opinion Here

Subscribe to the Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.

Subscribe to the Case Alert

Case Alert Archive

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2025 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 | Problems?   Webmaster | |