## Facts

- Paul Conti, a commercial swordfisherman, used the fishing vessel *F/V Providenza* and pelagic drift gillnets to harvest swordfish.
- In 1986, Conti obtained a federal swordfishing permit under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
- The permit was nontransferable, did not grant exclusive fishing privileges, and expressly remained subject to government authority to revoke, suspend, or modify it.
- The governing statutory scheme stated that the permit system could be limited or terminated without compensation and that permits created no right or interest in any fish.
- In January 1999, the government implemented a permanent ban on harvesting swordfish in the Atlantic Swordfish Fishery using drift gillnets.
- Conti alleged the ban eliminated the economic value of his permit and prevented use of the *Providenza* and specialized gear for their intended purpose.
- Conti and Conti Corporation sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking of the permit, vessel, and gear.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for failure to state a takings claim, and Conti appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal swordfishing permit issued under the Magnuson–Stevens Act constitutes a Fifth Amendment property interest capable of being taken.
2. Whether a regulation banning drift-gillnet swordfishing effects a compensable taking of a vessel and fishing gear when the owner retains title and possession.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held the swordfishing permit was a revocable privilege under the statutory and regulatory framework and therefore not property protected by the Takings Clause.
- The court held the drift-gillnet ban was not a compensable taking of the vessel or gear because it did not appropriate, physically invade, or dispossess Conti of that tangible property; it restricted only a particular use.

## Legal Principles

- A government-issued fishing permit may fail to qualify as Takings Clause “property” where the authorizing statute and permit terms reserve broad governmental power to modify or end the privilege without compensation and disclaim creation of rights in the regulated resource.
- No taking occurs where a regulation limits a specific use of personal property but leaves the owner’s title and physical possession intact and does not transfer property interests to the government.
- In heavily regulated fields, expectations of continued, unaltered permission to engage in a regulated activity are weak where the governing scheme expressly warns of change or termination without compensation.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit concluded that Conti’s Magnuson–Stevens swordfishing permit was not a compensable property interest and that the drift-gillnet ban, while economically harmful to his business model, did not take the *Providenza* or his gear because it neither dispossessed him nor appropriated his tangible property.


Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1112 (2003)