Family-owned fishing company challenges unconstitutional Fishery Management Council

James and Dominick Russo are fishermen who earn their living off the Florida coast. But their livelihood is in jeopardy.

James and Dominick have worked in the commercial fishing industry most of their lives. James, the older brother, has more than 30 years of experience under his belt. During the pandemic, the brothers moved to Sarasota, Florida, and opened FFC Seafood to make the most of the business-friendly climate the state offered.

While the brothers catch many different types of fish, their most profitable haul is gag grouper, a fish popular with high-end restaurants for its sweet flavor. However, just when their new fishing enterprise was thriving, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council passed Amendment 56, slashing the number of gag grouper that commercial fisherman can legally catch by over 80 percent.

Not only did they drastically lower the catch limit, but they also shifted the allocation between commercial and recreational fishermen, further cutting into the Russo brothers’ bottom line. Now, they must catch more fish of other species to make up for the loss, spending more time at sea. Time is money, and the new catch limit could easily bankrupt the brothers’ business.

Despite the significant impact that the new catch limit has on their business, the Russo brothers have little recourse. That’s because the rule was not passed by the City of Sarasota, the State of Florida, or even Congress. Instead, it was signed by a low-level federal employee at the direction of unelected federal bureaucrats who control fishing for the entire region.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is a collection of unelected federal officials who plan fishing activities for the region. They solely determined that there is a shortage of gag grouper, and that commercial fishing activities must be curtailed.

But these Council members’ rules aren’t just out of touch; they are unconstitutional.

The Constitution’s Appointments Clause requires the president and the Senate to appoint federal officials to ensure they remain accountable to the people’s elected representatives. The Appointments Clause is supposed to prevent unelected bureaucrats, like the Fishery Management Council, from enacting rules that individuals are powerless to challenge—rules like the gag grouper restriction that have a major impact on their lives and well-being.

To make matters worse, fishery council members are almost impossible to fire, yet they wield enormous power over their industry. This complicated structure of bureaucracy shields decision-makers from accountability, empowering them to create rules without considering their economic impact or feeling their consequences.

Now James and Dominick are fighting back. They have teamed up with Pacific Legal Foundation and filed a lawsuit against the Council’s unconstitutional restriction on their American Dream and their ability to provide for their livelihoods. They join other lawsuits filed against fishery councils up and down the East Coast, all fighting back against harmful intrusions into privately owned businesses.

It is not the role of unelected bureaucrats to create rules. That power lies with elected officials who represent the individuals who elected them. James and Dominick are fighting to protect their business and ensure that the Fishery Council follows the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.