The upcoming term of the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to bring further examination of governmental usage of modern tracking tools, reminiscent of the Chatrie v. United States case, but now within a different context. The Court is being petitioned to review Thompson v. Wilson, a legal challenge at the intersection of privacy rights and regulatory enforcement, emanating from the lobstering industry in Maine.
This legal disagreement originated in 2022 following a regulatory adjustment by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The commission, serving 15 states and the District of Columbia, revised its fishery management plans by incorporating boat-tracking measures. Consequently, the Maine Department of Marine Resources imposed regulations mandating that federally permitted lobstermen keep tracking devices on their vessels, recording positional data every minute when in use.
The rule faced opposition from lobstermen, who contested it in federal court citing Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” They argued for surveillance measures more targeted than the blanket monitoring this rule entailed, asserting it unnecessarily extended to private trips.
Maine’s defense hinged on administrative search exceptions within closely regulated industries, a stance upheld by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., who deemed the rule met substantial government interest. Maine’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted, yet the lobstermen were encouraged to appeal. Following that path, the First Circuit Court upheld the dismissal, referencing the New York v. Burger test. This test evaluates whether an administrative search necessitates a warrant by verifying its contribution to a regulatory scheme, its necessity, and whether it appropriately notifies those being regulated.
Challenging these findings, Frank Thompson, one of the lobstermen, petitioned the Supreme Court to reassess how Fourth Amendment doctrines are applied to both commercial and non-commercial activities. His petition for review argues the First Circuit’s approach potentially clouds the Fourth Amendment’s core principles.
While Maine initially opted not to respond, the Supreme Court’s subsequent call prompted a defense from the state, emphasizing procedural deficiencies in Thompson’s arguments at the appellate level. Their brief critiques the petition’s basis and relevance.
The matter, to be deliberated at the justices’ upcoming “long conference” on September 28, offers the Supreme Court a new lens to address the complexities of privacy, regulation, and the evolving dynamics of technological surveillance.