Maine Lobsterman Continues Legal Battle Over GPS Tracking Requirement After Supreme Court Declines Case

<p>Frank Thompson, a fifth-generation lobsterman from Vinalhaven, Maine, is continuing his fight against a GPS vessel-tracking requirement after the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge on October 10, 2026. Thompson argues that the mandate threatens his way of life and could impact other industries.</p><p>Thompson has been lobstering for decades and claims that the GPS tracking mandate has turned his boat into a government-monitored device, leading to a legal battle over surveillance and Fourth Amendment rights. He stated, "This is totally against the Fourth Amendment, and somebody's got to hear it one way or another." He believes the device installed on his boat is illegal and does not view himself as a criminal.</p><p>The tracking requirement mandates that a small electronic device be installed on federally licensed lobster boats in Maine, collecting location data once per minute while moving and every six hours while docked. Thompson expressed concerns about the data being collected during personal trips, stating it gives him "a creepy feeling" about who may be monitoring him.</p><p>Thompson's attorney, Matthew Gilliam from the Pacific Legal Foundation, argues that the tracking requirement infringes on Fourth Amendment rights as it is warrantless. The Maine Department of Marine Resources implemented the rule in 2023 at the direction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which supports the mandate as a measure to protect endangered North Atlantic right whales and monitor lobster populations.</p><p>Thompson and four other lobstermen filed a federal lawsuit against the tracking requirement, which was dismissed by a federal judge and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court found that the tracking requirement did not violate the Fourth Amendment due to the nature of the regulated industry.</p><p>The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has backed Thompson's Supreme Court appeal, arguing that the lower court's ruling could weaken Fourth Amendment protections for farmers and ranchers. In contrast, the Conservation Law Foundation supported the tracking requirement, stating it is necessary for managing lobster populations.</p><p>Thompson remains concerned about the implications of such regulations on his industry and the potential loss of privacy rights for those in regulated fields. He stated, "We're just out there making a living and we're taking good care of the resource." He plans to continue working with his lawyers to challenge the tracking requirement.</p>