Supreme Court denial leaves Maine lobster tracking rule in effect

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Frank Thompson’s petition challenging Maine’s boat-tracking requirement on Oct. 5, 2026. The denial leaves in place a First Circuit judgment against his challenge, but the justices did not decide whether the rule violates the Fourth Amendment.

The court docket lists the case as Thompson v. Wilson, No. 25-1105. Thompson, a lobster fisherman from Vinalhaven, asked the Supreme Court to review the First Circuit’s ruling. The court denied that request; it did not issue a decision on the constitutional merits or adopt the appeals court’s reasoning.

Rule covers vessels in the water

Maine requires lobster fishers who hold federal lobster permits to use an approved electronic tracking device and share vessel-location data. The device must be powered while a covered vessel is in the water, including when it is docked or being used for personal purposes.

The First Circuit described the system as recording time and vessel-position information, with a location reading once per minute. Because the requirement applies while a vessel is in the water, it is not limited to trips made for active fishing. The rule continues to apply to covered permit holders.

Thompson was one of five lobstermen who initially sued over the requirement. He alone pursued a petition to the Supreme Court. The case therefore arose from a challenge brought by several fishers, while the petition the justices considered was Thompson’s.

Appeals court treated tracking as an administrative search

Thompson argued that collecting the location data amounted to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. On Nov. 18, 2025, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment against the challenge, concluding that the tracking requirement qualified as an administrative search of a closely regulated industry.

That appeals-court ruling remains the operative court decision in the case. The Supreme Court’s denial means it did not review the constitutional question; it neither confirmed nor rejected the First Circuit’s legal analysis. The denial also did not create a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of vessel tracking.

Maine’s marine-resources commissioner has said the location information would help with lobster stock assessment and offshore enforcement. Those are the commissioner’s stated reasons for collecting the data, not findings made by the Supreme Court. The dispute before the justices concerned Thompson’s request for review of the lower-court judgment.

For Maine lobster fishers holding federal permits, the practical result is that the tracking requirement remains in effect. The Supreme Court docket records the petition as denied, and no further step in the case is established by the court’s action.