Systematic Practice

Lakes Pilots Association v. U.S. Coast Guard in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Lakes Pilots Association v. U.S. Coast Guard: On September 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an opinion and order in Lakes Pilots Association, Inc. v. U.S. Coast Guard, No. 2:11-cv-15462, denying the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (As reviewed in this legal encyclopedia in relation to international law issues in the year 2012), the United States filed its motion and brief in support in 2012, arguing that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiffs had no enforceable rights under the international agreement between the United States and Canada which formed a crucial part of their challenge. The court found that, even assuming that plaintiffs could rely on the international agreement to make the argument that the Coast Guard's determinations were contrary to law, the administrative record before the court lacked important factual information necessary for the court to determine if the Coast Guard acted reasonably. Therefore, the court remanded to the Coast Guard for further consideration.

Some Aspects of Lakes Pilots Association v. U.S. Coast Guard

194 Dames, 453 U.S. at 686 (quoting United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459, 474 (1915)). The Dames Court also quoted Justice Frankfurter's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which states that “a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned . . . may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive Power' vested in the President by § 1 of Art. II.” Dames, 453 U.S. at 686 (quoting Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579, 610-611 (1952)).

Resources

Notes

1. Lakes Pilots Association v. U.S. Coast Guard in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law