Chinatown Neighborhood Ass'n v. Harris, No. 14-15781 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's Shark Fin Law, Cal. Fish & Game Code 2021(b), which makes it unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin in the state. Plaintiffs alleged that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by interfering with
the national government’s authority to manage fishing in the ocean off the California coast, and the dormant Commerce Clause by interfering with interstate commerce in shark fins. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884, where plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between the MSA or the California law. The court also concluded that the district court did not fail to grant leave sua sponte and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. In this instance, leave to amend would be futile. Further, the court rejected plaintiffs' Commerce Clause argument, concluding that nothing about the extraterritorial reach of the Shark Fin Law renders it per se invalid; the law does not fix prices in other states, require those states to adopt California standards, or attempt to regulate transactions conducted wholly out of state, and the price control cases are therefore inapposite; and the Shark Fin Law does not interfere with activity that is inherently national or that requires a uniform system of regulation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ amended complaint challenging California’s “Shark Fin Law,” which makes it “unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin” in the state. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the Shark Fin Law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The panel held that plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between federal authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage shark fishing in the ocean off the California coast and the California Shark Fin Law. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.