A Maine lobsterman’s legal battle against GPS tracking on his fishing vessel raises significant concerns about privacy rights and government overreach, following a Supreme Court decision not to hear his case.
Frank Thompson, a fifth-generation lobsterman from Vinalhaven, Maine, is determined to continue his fight against a GPS vessel-tracking requirement after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his Fourth Amendment case. Thompson argues that the tracking mandate threatens not only his way of life but also the privacy rights of individuals across various industries.
For decades, Thompson has navigated the waters off the Maine coast, setting traps and hauling in lobsters. However, he now describes the GPS tracking device mandated for federally licensed lobster boats as a government-issued “ankle bracelet,” which has sparked a prolonged legal battle over issues of constant surveillance and constitutional rights.
“This is totally against the Fourth Amendment, and somebody’s got to hear it one way or another,” Thompson told Fox News Digital. “This black box that they’re putting aboard the boat is not legal, in my mind, and I’m not a criminal.”
Thompson, who co-owns Fox Island Lobster Company with his wife and two sons, received the news of the Supreme Court’s decision while out fishing earlier this month. His son texted him to inform him that the Court had declined to hear his petition, thereby upholding a First Circuit ruling that deemed the GPS tracking requirement constitutional due to the closely regulated nature of the lobstering industry.
Despite the setback, Thompson remains resolute. “I just told myself, I said, ‘Well, it ain’t over yet,’” he said, emphasizing his commitment to the fight.
The GPS tracking mandate, implemented by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (Maine DMR) in 2023 at the direction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, requires the installation of a small electronic device on lobster boats. This device collects location data once per minute while the boat is moving and every six hours while docked. Thompson expressed concerns that the tracking continues even during personal trips, raising significant privacy issues.
“Freedom is gone. What else can they do to us?” he lamented, highlighting the invasive nature of the surveillance.
Thompson’s connection to the sea runs deep; he recalls his first boat ride occurring just two days after his birth. He now shares this passion with his sons and grandchildren, who are also following in his footsteps. “Fishing’s been in my blood, and I always want to be on the water,” he said. “It’s just a way of life.”
He likened the thrill of pulling up a trap full of lobsters to “opening a present at Christmas time,” underscoring the emotional significance of his work.
Matthew Gilliam, Thompson’s attorney from the Pacific Legal Foundation, argues that the tracking requirement infringes on Fourth Amendment rights by constituting a warrantless search. “That forced trespass was a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it’s an unreasonable search and seizure,” Gilliam stated.
The Maine DMR has defended the tracking requirement as essential for protecting endangered North Atlantic right whales and ensuring the sustainability of lobster populations. State officials and conservationists support the mandate, asserting that it is necessary for the long-term viability of the industry.
Thompson, however, is skeptical of the government’s motives. “They’re bringing it up because it’s for the whales,” he said. “Well, the government’s lying through their teeth like they always do, and I’m not a criminal.”
After the mandate took effect, Thompson and four fellow lobstermen filed a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the tracking devices. A federal judge dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that decision, citing the exception for closely regulated industries as justification for the tracking requirement.
Thompson believes that the implications of this case extend beyond the fishing industry. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which represents farmers and ranchers, has supported Thompson’s Supreme Court appeal. They filed an amicus brief arguing that the lower court’s reasoning could undermine Fourth Amendment protections for various regulated industries.
“Everybody’s got cell phones; they can track us if they want to,” Thompson noted. “But putting a black box on a tractor to monitor how many days it’s out in the field, it’s just, the independence is gone.”
While the AFBF backs Thompson’s challenge, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), which filed a separate brief in favor of the tracking requirement, praised the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case. “This decision is a valuable step toward appropriately managing this iconic species,” said CLF Associate Attorney Sarah Shahabi in a press release.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, Maine DMR reiterated its support for the tracking requirement, emphasizing its importance for the sustainability of the lobster fishery. “DMR continues to believe this data collection requirement is critically important to the long-term sustainability of the lobster fishery and resource,” stated Maine DMR Commissioner Carl Wilson.
Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, Gilliam insists that lobstermen and others in regulated industries should not forfeit their privacy rights simply for doing their jobs. “Lobstermen and others have Fourth Amendment protections, and we’ll continue fighting against government overreach,” he affirmed.
Thompson remains committed to seeking answers about why the government treats lobstermen as if they have done something wrong. “We’re just out there making a living, and we’re taking good care of the resource,” he said. “You can’t believe the steps that we’ve done to take care of it, and we don’t get credit for nothing.”
He warns that if government regulations continue to proliferate across various fisheries, it could jeopardize the livelihoods of many. “People just don’t think before they react to it,” he cautioned. “All these rules and regulations are taking away a lifestyle of generations of freedom.”
Looking ahead, Thompson plans to continue working with his legal team to challenge the tracking requirement. “I’m fighting for everybody, not just myself,” he declared. “I’m just fighting for freedom for everybody.”
According to Fox News, Thompson’s case highlights the ongoing debate over privacy rights in the face of government regulation and surveillance.