Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

California Sea Urchin Commission, et al. v. Susan Combs, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 15-56672, 17-55428 · judgment March 1, 2018

Certiorari denied · October 29, 2018

Pre-decision estimate: 23% cert probability (95% interval 15%–33%)

Before the decision, about 5.5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a state or local-government petitioner, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.

Questions presented

In 1986, Congress authorized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reintroduce sea otters into Southern California waters, conditioned on several mandatory protections for the surrounding fishery. In addition to dictating that the Service “shall” adopt a regulation that “must” contain the required fishery protections, the statute also directs that the Service “shall implement” the regulation. The statute says nothing about the Service revoking these mandatory protections. Twenty-five years after accepting this authority and reintroducing sea otters into these waters, the Service repealed the regulation and terminated the statute’s protections. Upholding that decision, the Ninth Circuit held that the statute “does not speak to the issue of termination at all.” Because the statute is completely silent on the issue, the Ninth Circuit concluded it must defer to the agency’s claim that it has this power under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The questions presented are:

If a statute neither authorizes nor forbids an agency action, does that statutory silence trigger Chevron deference?
If yes, how should courts measure the reasonableness of an agency’s interpretation where that interpretation is not based on any statutory text but instead on the absence of relevant text?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jonathan Calvin Wood
Property and Environment Research Center

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
4 cert-stage

Proceedings

Oct 29 2018
Petition DENIED.
Oct 03 2018
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
Sep 28 2018
Reply of petitioners California Sea Urchin Commission, et al. filed.
Sep 14 2018
Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed. (Distributed)
Sep 12 2018
Brief of respondents Center for Biological Diversity, et al. in opposition filed.
Sep 11 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 14, 2018.
Sep 10 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 12, 2018 to September 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jul 30 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 12, 2018.
Jul 20 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 6, 2018 to September 12, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jul 05 2018
Amicus brief of STATES OF TEXAS, ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MAINE, MICHIGAN, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING not accepted for filing. (July 06, 2018)
Jul 05 2018
Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, et al. filed.
Jul 05 2018
Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions filed.
Jul 05 2018
Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Jul 05 2018
Brief amicus curiae of Landmark Legal Foundation filed.
Jul 03 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 6, 2018
Jul 02 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 5, 2018 to August 6, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jun 05 2018
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, California Sea Urchin Commission, et al..
May 30 2018
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 5, 2018)