Fifth Circuit rules fishery council unconstitutional but denies Gulf fishermen relief

New Orleans, Louisiana; March 30, 2026: A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Friday that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is unconstitutionally structured, but declined to restore the fishing rights of two commercial fishermen whose livelihoods the Council has devastated. The court found that the council’s veto powers violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, but denied relief to Karen Bell and William Copeland—whose greater amberjack quota was slashed by nearly 80%—by severing those veto powers rather than the unconstitutional appointment provisions.

“The Fifth Circuit confirmed that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is an unconstitutional and unaccountable federal agency,” said Michael Poon, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. “But the court denied relief to our clients by rewriting the law, which only Congress may do.”

Bell and Copeland challenged Amendment 54, a rule issued by the council, after it decimated their annual catch. Despite wielding sweeping regulatory power over federal fisheries, the council’s members are appointed by state governors — not by the president with Senate confirmation, as the Constitution requires. The court agreed with the fishermen’s argument that the Council’s structure violates the Constitution but severed the veto provisions that created that unconstitutional structure, denying the fishermen relief.

This ruling, along with the Third Circuit’s 2024 decision in Lofstad v. Raimondo and the pending case Russo v. Raimondo before the Eleventh Circuit, marks another case in which Pacific Legal Foundation has successfully persuaded courts to recognize that fisheries regulators are unaccountable, even as PLF pushes courts to go further by granting fishermen real relief.

Pacific Legal Foundation represents Bell and Copeland free of charge and is considering next steps in the case. The case is Bell v. Raimondo.