Maine Lobsterman’s SCOTUS Privacy Fight Could Reach Beyond Fishing

A Maine lobsterman says his fight over mandatory GPS tracking is far from finished, even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge. Frank Thompson, a fifth-generation lobsterman from Vinalhaven, argues that the requirement to carry a location-tracking device on his federally licensed boat amounts to round-the-clock government surveillance and violates the Fourth Amendment.

Thompson learned earlier this month that the justices would not take up his appeal, leaving in place a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That court found the tracking rule constitutional because commercial lobstering is considered a closely regulated industry. Thompson, however, says the decision leaves working people with fewer privacy protections simply because of the jobs they do.

The tracking mandate requires a small electronic device to be installed on federally licensed lobster boats in Maine. According to the Maine Department of Marine Resources, the system records a vessel’s location once per minute while it is moving and every six hours while it is docked. Thompson’s concern is not limited to time spent fishing. He says the device also logs personal travel, whether he is heading to the mainland or taking part in family activities, creating what he describes as a constant sense of being watched.

For Thompson, the issue is personal as well as constitutional. He has said he first went on a boat ride two days after he was born and that lobstering has shaped his family for generations. He and his wife own Fox Island Lobster Company with their two sons, and he says his sons and grandchildren are now following the same path. In his view, the dispute is not only about one device on one boat, but about whether a way of life can continue without ever-expanding oversight.

Why the rule exists

Maine regulators adopted the requirement in 2023 at the direction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. State officials and conservation advocates have defended the trackers as an important tool for protecting endangered North Atlantic right whales, monitoring lobster activity and helping preserve the long-term health of the fishery. After the Supreme Court’s decision, Maine DMR Commissioner Carl Wilson said the agency still considers the data collection requirement critical to the sustainability of the lobster resource and industry.

Not everyone agrees. Thompson has rejected the idea that lobstermen should be treated like suspected wrongdoers in order to meet management goals. Shortly after the rule took effect, he and four other lobstermen sued in federal court, arguing that they were being subjected to tracking they never agreed to. A federal judge dismissed the case, and the First Circuit later upheld that result.

A case with wider implications

Thompson’s attorney, Matthew Gilliam of Pacific Legal Foundation, argues that forcing fishermen to carry trackers as a condition of keeping their licenses is an unreasonable search. He says workers in regulated industries do not surrender their constitutional protections when they go to work.

That broader concern drew support from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which filed an amicus brief backing Thompson’s Supreme Court appeal. The group warned that the lower court’s reasoning could affect farmers, ranchers and others whose livelihoods depend on government licenses or oversight. On the other side, the Conservation Law Foundation praised the court’s decision, calling it a meaningful step toward managing an iconic species.

Although the Supreme Court closed the door on this appeal, Thompson says the matter is not settled. He plans to keep working with his lawyers to challenge the tracking mandate, arguing that the fight is about more than lobstering. In his view, it is about whether people can still make a living without being monitored at every turn.