Opinion ID: 2550152
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maine's Definition of Registered Vessel

Text: [¶ 15] Thomas argues that Maine's definition of registered vessel in section 6001(36) is impermissibly broad when used as a basis for state jurisdiction in the EEZ. 12 M.R.S. § 6001(36) (2009). He asserts that the definition of registered vessel should be construed narrowly so that Maine would not be able to exert jurisdiction over the Blue Water in the EEZ pursuant to § 1856(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [11] [¶ 16] The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows a state to enact more restrictive marine resource laws to be enforced in the EEZ against vessels registered in that state. See Daley v. Comm'r, Dep't of Marine Res., 1997 ME 183, ¶ 6, 698 A.2d 1053, 1056 ([T]he federal lobster management plan contains no limit on the number of traps that may be fished, authorizes concurrent state jurisdiction, and expressly allows the enforcement of more restrictive state law requirements. (footnote omitted)); State v. Hayes, 603 A.2d 869, 871 (Me.1992) (Here, Congress has authorized enforcement of more restrictive state fishing laws within the EEZ.). [¶ 17] Thomas warns that section 6001(36) allows Maine to exercise jurisdiction over almost any vessel fishing in the EEZ off the Maine coast even when such vessels have remote or tenuous connections to the state. Even if such policy arguments had a place in judicial reviews, Thomas's arguments are not supported by this record. Because it is clear the Blue Water was a Maine registered vessel under at least three of the six options listed in section 6001(36), [12] the Blue Water's connection to Maine is neither remote nor tenuous. [¶ 18] When Congress enacted the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it did not enumerate specific requirements for making the exercise of state jurisdiction in the EEZ lawful. Instead, the language of § 1856(a) allows individual states to determine which fishing vessels are registered. See People v. Weeren, 26 Cal.3d 654, 163 Cal.Rptr. 255, 607 P.2d 1279, 1287, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 839, 101 S.Ct. 115, 66 L.Ed.2d 45 (1980). Section 6001(36), which allows for broader enforcement of Maine's marine resource laws, serves important conservation goals and does not conflict with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [¶ 19] Thomas also argues that Maine's enforcement of its marine resource laws in the EEZ results in discrimination in enforcement against Maine citizens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Thomas bears a heavy burden of proving unconstitutionality since all acts of the Legislature are presumed constitutional, and we review whether he has met that burden de novo. State v. Gilman, 2010 ME 35, ¶ 13, 993 A.2d 14, 19 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 20] We have previously addressed constitutional challenges to the State's exercise of jurisdiction in the EEZ. Hayes, 603 A.2d at 871. The State's enforcement of its marine resource laws against only Maine registered vessels does not violate equal protection, because this limitation on jurisdiction reflects a delineation of the outer bounds of Maine's sovereignty rather than the creation of a suspect classification. See id. The fact that the Maine Legislature has elected to enact strict marine resource protection laws that it can enforce only against Maine-registered vessels in the EEZ is an issue of legislative policy and prerogative, which is beyond the authority of the court to review.