Sometimes, a little sunlight does some good. As I reported last month, even while Pam Bondi’s Justice Department has been treating Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as a victory for conservative and MAGA critics of the administrative state, career lawyers at the DOJ were continuing to defend the very Commerce Department fishing-monitor regulation at issue in Loper Bright and its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled in favor of the government in Relentless, concluding that the Commerce Department could saddle fishing boats with the cost of monitors even without any authorization in the statutory text for charging them such a fee: “The default norm, manifest without express statement in literally hundreds of regulations, is that the government does not reimburse regulated entities for the cost of complying with properly enacted regulations, at least short of a taking.” Never mind that this isn’t a matter of the boats bearing the costs of their own compliance with rules, but of paying a regulatory agent for the government. The judge also found that, because the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives the agency “necessary and appropriate” powers, this “in no uncertain terms, delegates . . . a large degree of discretionary authority.” Actually, a term could hardly be more uncertain, and the whole point of Loper Bright is that agency discretion is about policy — not the interpretation of the law.

The Loper Bright and Relentless plaintiffs could still have a long voyage ahead in the appeals courts — unless the government listens to reason. But it seems that attention to the anomalous position taken by the DOJ and Commerce may be paying off: The government has entered into talks with the Loper Bright plaintiffs to settle the case, and any such settlement would necessarily entail at least some retreat from the original regulations.