## Facts

- NOAA issued a final rule banning drift gillnets in the Atlantic king mackerel fishery under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
- Plaintiffs were a fish wholesaler, a fish packing house, and two commercial fishermen whose income substantially depended on Atlantic king mackerel caught using drift gillnets.
- Plaintiffs alleged the ban would cause severe economic harm because they relied on drift-gillnet supply and claimed there was no profitable alternative fishery for their vessels during part of the year.
- Plaintiffs sued federal fisheries officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the ban exceeded statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and was tainted by the Assistant Administrator’s alleged bias.
- The district court entered summary judgment for the federal defendants and intervenors; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries had authority to approve the final rule under agency delegation orders, despite earlier contrary action by subordinate officials.
2. Whether the drift-gillnet ban violated the Magnuson Act or was arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
3. Whether due process required disqualification of the Assistant Administrator based on alleged bias shown by prior advocacy and statements against drift gillnets.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government and upheld the ban.
- The court held the delegation orders did not divest higher officials of authority; the Assistant Administrator retained power to approve the rule.
- The court held the agency provided a reasoned explanation supported by the record, including concerns about by-catch and fishery management objectives, satisfying the Magnuson Act and APA.
- The court rejected the bias claim because plaintiffs did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the decisionmaker had an “unalterably closed mind” on critical matters.

## Legal Principles

- Internal delegations within an agency generally confer concurrent authority unless the delegation clearly and expressly strips higher officials of power.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, a fishery management rule is upheld if the agency reasonably explains its choice and connects the record evidence to the regulatory action.
- In informal rulemaking, disqualification for bias requires clear and convincing proof that the official had an “unalterably closed mind” on issues central to the decision; prior policy views or public statements alone are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court sustained NOAA’s drift-gillnet ban because the Assistant Administrator retained approval authority under the agency’s delegation structure, the rule was reasonably explained and supported by the administrative record, and alleged bias did not meet the demanding “unalterably closed mind” standard for disqualification in informal rulemaking.


C & W Fish Co. v. Fox, 931 F.2d 1556 (D.C. Cir. 1991)