WPCl t71'sZ?I!RE)@wLZ1TMQnEGסqSc/t]߈o}ɚvh!isޢ^O@yZ@64 7Fb,鬄HF͗S_%Z%\p焰\em|bxM5qb: ]7(-/P })Y,4a͠Rf0Ӫ* &Y.am"^x8,\%bQW[O>g}xohkbk&2_[Pi0!>'9P==$7,!/GYVU 3!:_?l[]9B,Lz $4Sa#[a.{#Ž6]:L[}|QZ[¨*iL.[޺04;u\/(x<ϩ/%-X21RK5# % 0(UF 0++nTNE ^ G wS 4W k z m| N E f a > 0D b/ / 7 [QQQQQQ BUFUNHP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,03X ($.Courier New Regular(v(2$ !    =!XXdd=    0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@{W;Z f#;6Xyfiles3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT(#$  0  - -  $  =XXdd=    2    _ԀForexample,R.I.Gen.Laws202.19maybereadto  suggestthatitisviolatedwhenthedirectoradoptsretroactive  controldatesthat,whilenot"expressly"requiredbyfederallaw, \ areimpliedlyrequired.Inthatevent,adefendantwouldbeable 2 toattackthestatestatuteonthegroundthatitconflictswith X federallawandis,therefore,preempted.See,e.g.,  Gibbonsv. . Ogden,22U.S.(9Wheat.)1,2(1824).Butthathypothetical   defendantwouldhavetomountthisattackasadefense,whichwould   notprovideasufficientbasisforfederalquestionjurisdiction. n  See_Mottley_,211U.S.at152. Q $  =XXdd=    1    __ԀA"controldate"is"[a]cutoffdateforpotentialusein  establishingeligibilitycriteriaforfutureaccesstoafishery."  12080054R.I.Code.R.5.17.Neithertherelevantstatutenor \ thechallengedregulation,however,definestheterm"retroactive 2 controldate."Theplaintiffsaverthatthe_DEM_Ԁemployed X "retroactivecontroldates"by limiting,in2006,fishermen's . futureaccesstofishingresourcesbasedoneachfisherman's   documentedcatchduring20012003.   $  =XXdd=    3    _ԀThefactthattheembeddedfederalquestioninthiscase  presentsanabstractquestionoflaw reinforcesthisview.See  Empire_HealthChoice_ԀAssur.,Inc.v._McVeigh_,547U.S.677,70001 \ (2006). d<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular !  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !   3.X3X4Y3.UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#3.4Y##3XX3.#  3H4X3X4 3H4FortheFirstCircuit   #3H44 ؏##3XX3H4p#A') ` dE< ` A   No.082390 K  @RHODEISLANDFISHERMEN'SALLIANCE,INC.,ETAL.,  G  @Plaintiffs,Appellants, y  @tt)v. %u  @ RHODEISLANDDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENTETAL., ! @Defendants,Appellees. } A') ` dE<(` A )y @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^   FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND   @@*[Hon.MaryM._Lisi_,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A b @@'Before G @@((Torruella,SelyaandHoward,CircuitJudges.   ЀA') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       RobertJ.Caronforappellants.  "Z%   SeanH.DonahueandGaryE.Powers,ChiefDeputyLegal "0& Counsel,DepartmentofEnvironmentalManagement,withwhomDonahue #' &Goldberg,_LLP_,TerenceJ._Tierney_,SpecialAssistantAttorney $( General,MarkA._McSally_,andKelly,Kelleher,Reilly&Simpson b% ) wereonconsolidatedbrief,forappellees. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. @40108@SOctober23,2009 )D%0  RHC*&1" @40108 @ R()n$2  (* !  ,'3?     *,X` XX*8XXdd8 ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Thisappealbringsusfacetoface  withtwoexoticcreatures:theAmericanlobsterandastatelaw x claimthatmayormaynotcontainanembeddedfederalquestion $t sufficienttogroundaclaimoforiginaljurisdictionunder28   U.S.C.1331(commonlyknownas"federalquestion"jurisdiction). |  Casesofthissortrequirecourtstoventureintoamurky ( x  jurisprudence.Theanswersarerarelyblackorwhitebut,rather, $  moreoftendousedinvaryingshadesofgray.Thedifficult   jurisdictionalquestionpresentedhereisnoexception. ,|   ` Theunderlyingcasebeganasastatecourtchallengeto ( regulationspromulgatedbytheRhodeIslandDepartmentof  EnvironmentalManagement(_DEM_).Thoseregulationsimposed 0 restrictionsonlobstertrapallocationsforRhodeIslandwaters. , Thechallengetothemcentersonthe_DEM_'sallegeduseof  retroactivecontroldatesincomposingtheregulatoryscheme._ #  1      _Ԁ 4  ` The_DEM_Ԁthoughtthatitwasobligedtoadoptthe 0 retroactivecontroldatesbyfederallaw.Accordingly,itremoved   thecasetothefederaldistrictcourt.Theplaintiffsmovedto 8!" remand,butthedistrictcourtrefusedtorelinquishjurisdiction. "4$ R.I.Fishermen'sAll.,Inc.v._Dep't_Ԁof_Envtl_._Mgmt_.(_RIFA_ԀI),No.  07230(_D.R.I._ԀNov.5,2007)(unpublishedorder).Thecourt \ subsequentlygrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants. X R.I.Fishermen'sAll.,Inc.v._Dep't_Ԁof_Envtl_._Mgmt_.(_RIFA_ԀII),No.   07230,2008WL4467186,at*16(_D.R.I._ԀOct.3,2008). `   ` Aftercarefulconsiderationoftheplaintiffs'ensuing  \  appeal,weagreethatthedistrictcourtappropriatelyexercised   federalquestionjurisdictionoverthecase.Oncethe d  jurisdictionalpuzzleissolved,thechallengetotheregulations `  iseasilydispatched.Thetalefollows.    I.BACKGROUND h  ` Werehearseheretheregulatoryframeworkandtravelof 0 thecasetotheextentneededtoplacethisappealinperspective. , @ A.RegulatoryFramework.   ` In1942,CongressconsentedtoandapprovedtheAtlantic P StatesMarineFisheriesCompact(theCompact),aninterstate L agreementamongfifteenstates(includingRhodeIsland)andthe   DistrictofColumbia.SeePub.L.No.77539,56Stat.267.All T!" thesignatoriesaresituatedclosetotheAtlanticcoast. #P$  ` UndertheCompact,thesignatoriesaretoexercisejoint $& regulatoryoversightoftheirfisheriesthroughthedevelopmentof X&!( interstatefisherymanagementplans.SeeMedeirosv.Vincent,431 (T#* F.3d25,2728(1stCir.2005).Originally,participationinany )%, givenfisherymanagementplanwasvoluntary.Id.In1993, \+&. however,CongressimplantedsometeethintheCompactbyadopting  theAtlanticCoastalFisheriesCooperativeManagementAct(the \ ManagementAct),Pub.L.No.103206,107Stat.2447(codifiedat X 16U.S.C.51015108).    ` Amongotherthings,thenewlawmadestatecompliance `  withfisherymanagementplanscompulsory.See16U.S.C.  \  5104(b)(1).ItalsodesignatedtheAtlanticStatesMarine   FisheriesCommission(theCommission)asthebodythatwould d  prepareandadoptinterstatefisherymanagementplans.Id. `  5102(3);5104(a)(1).TheCommissionworksthroughspecies   specificmanagementboards(suchastheAmericanLobsterManagement h Board)todevelopsuchplans. d  ` Onceaplanisformulatedandapproved,eachaffected  stateisrequiredtoimplementit,usuallythroughthemediumof l statelawsandregulations.SeeMedeiros,431F.3dat2728.The h Commissionitselfmonitorscompliance.16U.S.C.5104_(c_).Ifa  statefailstocomplywithanapprovedplan,theCommissionmay p  notifytheSecretaryofCommerce,whohasthepowertoimposea !l" moratoriumonfishingoftherelevantspeciesinthewatersofthe "$ noncompliantstate.Id.5106_(c_). t$&  ` In1997,theCommissiondecidedtotakestepstocombat  &p!( rampant_overfishing_Ԁoflobsterstock. Inadeterminedeffortto '#* protectthesupplyoftheseappetizingarthropods,itadopted x)$, Amendment3totheInterstateFisheryManagementPlanforAmerican $+t&. Lobster.Then,worriedaboutespeciallyrapiddepletionofthe  lobsterstockin"Area2""thewatersoffMassachusettsandRhode \ Island"theAmericanLobsterManagementBoardengraftedAddendum X VIIontoAmendment3.AddendumVIIrequiresthesestatesto   allocatelobstertrapstofishermenbasedoneachfisherman's `  documentedlobstercatchduring20012003.SeeAddendumVII,  \  2.1.1.    ` In2006,the_DEM_ԀadoptedRegulation15.14.2forthe d  avowedpurposeof"_bring[ing_]theStateofRhodeIslandinto `  compliancewithAddendumVII."12080012R.I.CodeR.15.14.2   1.ThetakingoflobstersinRhodeIslandwatersrequireseither h afederalpermitorastatelicense.SeeR.I.Gen.Laws202.1 d 4(a);12080012R.I.CodeR.15.1. Thestate'slicensing  scheme,inturn,involveslobstertrapallocations.See12080012 l R.I.CodeR.15.14.2. Underthenewregulation,eligibilityfor h alobstertrapallocationdepends,interalia,onashowing(i)  thattheapplicanthelda_DEM_Ԅissuedcommerciallobsterlicenseor p  federalpermitforArea2atsometimeinthe20012003timeframe; !l" and(ii)thathehaddocumentedlobsterlandingsfromtrapsinArea "$ 2duringthattimeframe.Id.15.14.26. t$& @ B.ProceedingsBelow.   &p!(  ` Distressedbywhattheyperceivedastheuseof '8#* retroactivecontroldatesinthenewregulatoryframework,the )$, _lobstermen_Ԁclawedback.OnJune4,2007,theRhodeIsland @+&. Fishermen'sAlliance,atradeorganizationactingbyandthrough  itspresident,Richard_Fuka_,andeightindividuallobsterfishermen \ (StevenRiley,Brian_Loftes_,Stephen_Mederios_,Greg_Duckworth_, X VincentCarvalho,Peter_DiBiase_,RobertMorris,andAndrew   _Cavanagh_) filedacomplaintfordeclaratoryjudgmentagainstthe `  _DEM_Ԁanditsdirector,MichaelSullivan,inhisofficialcapacity,  \  inaRhodeIslandstatecourt.Theplaintiffsallegedthatthe   adoptionofRegulation15.14.2violatedtheRhodeIsland d  ConstitutionandanarrayofRhodeIslandstatutes. `   ` Despitethefactthatthecomplaintallegedonlystate   lawcausesofaction,defendants_DEM_ԀandMichaelSullivaninvoked h federalquestionjurisdiction,28U.S.C.1331,andremovedthe d casetotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofRhode  Island.Shortlythereafter,theCommissionandtheRhodeIsland l _Lobstermen_'sAssociation,alongwithsevenindividuallobster h fishermen(AlChristopher,_Lanny_Ԁ_Dellinger_,AlEagles,Aaron  _Gerwitz_,Michael_Marchetti_,Harry_Towne_,andRussWallace),filed p  motionstointervene,whichweregrantedbythedistrictcourt. !l" Theplaintiffschallengedtheexistenceoffederaljurisdictionand "$ askedthedistrictcourttoremandthecasetothestatecourt. t$& Thedistrictcourtdeniedtheirmotion._RIFA_ԀI,at11.   &p!(  ` Thecaseproceededinthefederalforum.Indueseason, '#*  thepartiescrossmovedforsummaryjudgment.Inawellreasoned x)$, rescript,thedistrictcourtgrantedthedefendants'motionand  deniedtheplaintiffs'motion._RIFA_ԀII,2008WL4467186,at*16.  \   ` Theplaintiffsnowappealboththedenialoftheirmotion X toremandandtheentryofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe   defendants.Wehavejurisdictionunder28U.S.C.1291,andwe `  affirmbothrulings.  \   II.ANALYSIS    ` Wedivideouranalysisintotwomainsegments.Wefirst   addressthetangledjurisdictionalissueandthenbrieflyaddress ,|  themerits. ( @" A.Jurisdiction.    ` Thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotiontoremandwithoutan L evidentiaryhearing.Thus,wereviewdenovotheproprietyofthat H order(and,thus,thecourt'sunderlyingconclusionthatithad  subjectmatterjurisdictionovertheaction).See_Fayard_v._N.E._ P Vehicle_Servs_.,LLC,533F.3d42,45(1stCir.2008). L  ` Removalofacivilactionfromstatetofederalcourtis   properonlyiftheactioninitiallycouldhavebeenbroughtinthe T!" federalcourt.28U.S.C.1441(a).Becausethedefendants #P$ concedethatthereisnoconceivablebasisforfederaljurisdiction $& apartfrom28U.S.C.1331,theproprietyofremovalhingeson X&!( whetherthedistrictcourthadfederalquestionjurisdiction.See (T#* FranchiseTaxBd.v.Constr.LaborersVacationTrust,463U.S.1, )%, 11n.9(1983). \+&.  ` Therelevantstatutegrantsfederaldistrictcourts  originaljurisdictionover"allcivilactionsarisingunderthe \ Constitution,laws,ortreatiesoftheUnitedStates."28U.S.C. X 1331.Thereisnomechanicaltestfordeterminingwhenanaction   "_aris[es_]under"federallaw.SeeFranchiseTax,463U.S.at8 `  (notingthatthephrase"arisingunder"has"resistedallattempts  \  toframeasingle,precisedefinitionfordeterminingwhichcases   fallwithin,andwhichcasesfalloutside,theoriginal d  jurisdictionofthedistrictcourts").Thisdoesnotmean, `  however,thatweareleftrudderlessonaseaofuncertainty.    ` Experienceteachesthattherearetwotypesofactions h thatfallwithintheencinctureoffederalquestionjurisdiction. d Thefirst(andmostfamiliar)categoryinvolvesdirectfederal  questions;thatis,suitsinwhichtheplaintiffpleadsacauseof l actionthathasitsrootsinfederallaw(say,aclaimpremisedon h theUnitedStatesConstitutionoronafederalstatute).See,  e.g.,Am.WellWorksCo.v._Layne_Ԁ&BowlerCo.,241U.S.257,260 p  (1916)(Holmes,J.);Almondv.CapitalProps.,Inc.,212F.3d20, !l" 23(1stCir.2000).Thesecond(andfarmorerare)category "$ involvesembeddedfederalquestions;thatis,suitsinwhichthe t$& plaintiffpleadsastatelawcauseofaction,butthatcauseof  &p!( action"necessarily_raise[s_]astatedfederalissue,actually '#* disputedandsubstantial,whichafederalforummayentertain x)$, withoutdisturbinganycongressionallyapprovedbalanceoffederal $+t&. andstatejudicialresponsibilities."_Grable_Ԁ&SonsMetalProds.,  Inc.v._Darue_Ԁ_Eng'g_Ԁ&Mfg.,545U.S.308,314(2005);accordSmith \ v._Kan_.CityTitle&TrustCo.,255U.S.180,20102(1921). X e ` Thesecategorieshavesomecommonalities.Most   prominently,everyputativefederalquestioncasemustpaytribute `  tothewellpleadedcomplaintrule.Asthisshorthandnomenclature  \  suggests,therulerequiresthefederalquestiontobestatedonthe   faceoftheplaintiff'swellpleadedcomplaint.SeeFranchiseTax, d  463U.S.at13(holdingthatfederalquestionjurisdictionextends `  to"onlythosecasesinwhichawellpleadedcomplaintestablishes   eitherthatfederallawcreatesthecauseofactionorthatthe h plaintiff'srighttoreliefnecessarilydependsonresolutionofa d substantialquestionoffederallaw").Tosatisfytherule,the  plaintiff'swellpleadedcomplaintmustexhibit,withinitsfour l corners,eitheranexplicitfederalcauseofactionorastatelaw h causeofactionthatcontainsanembeddedquestionoffederallaw  thatisbothsubstantialanddisputed.SeeW.14thSt._Comm'l_ԀCorp. p  v.5W.14thOwnersCorp.,815F.2d188,193(2dCir.1987).The !l" existenceofafederaldefensetoastatelawcauseofactionwill "$ notsuffice.SeeLouisville&NashvilleR.R.Co.v._Mottley_,211 t$& U.S.149,152(1908).  &p!(  ` Inthecaseathand,theplaintiffshavepleadednothing '#*  butstatelawcausesofaction.Consequently,thejurisdictional x)$, inquiryreducestowhetheranembeddedfederalquestionaffordedthe  districtcourtoriginaljurisdictionovertheaction. \   ` Theplaintiffs'complaintlimnsawidevarietyofstate X constitutionalandstatutoryclaims,attackingthe_DEM_'sregulatory   schemefromanumberofvantagepoints.Importantly,however,all `  ofthesecausesofactionderivefromacommonnucleusofoperative  \  fact.Thus,ifthedistrictcourthadoriginaljurisdictionover   anyoneofthesecausesofaction,thenithadsupplemental d  jurisdictionovertherest,see28U.S.C.1367;UnitedMine `  Workersv.Gibbs,383U.S.715,725(1966);  Rodriguezv._Doral_   _Mortg_.Corp.,57F.3d1168,117677(1stCir.1995);seealso  CarnegieMellonUniv.v._Cohill_,484U.S.343,35051(1988) 0 (holdingthatthesupplementaljurisdictionstatuteapplieswith , equalforcetocasesremovedtofederalcourt),andwemustanswer  thejurisdictionalquestionaffirmatively.Mindfulofthisreality, 4 wefocusthelensofourinquiryonthemostpromisingcandidatefor 0 federaljurisdiction:theplaintiffs'claimthattheadoptionof   Regulation15.14.2violatedR.I.Gen.Laws202.19. 8!"  ` Inundertakingthistask,wefollowthethreestep "4$ progressionsuggestedbytheSupremeCourt'sdecisionin_Grable_,545 $& U.S.at31316.Westartwiththemostpressingconcern:whether <&!( theplaintiffs'wellpleadedcomplaintnecessarilyraisesafederal '8#* question.Ifso,wethenmullwhetherthefederalquestionis )$, actuallydisputedandsubstantial.Andifthequestionsurvives @+&. scrutinyonthesepoints,welastconsiderwhetherthatquestionis  onethatafederalcourtmayentertainwithoutimpermissiblytilting \ thebalanceoffederalandstatejudicialresponsibilities. X   ` 1.Necessity. Incount5oftheircomplaint,the   plaintiffsallegethatthedefendantsviolatedR.I.Gen.Laws20 |  2.19.Thisstatute,intheprocessofdelineatingthepowersand ( x  dutiesofthedirectorofthe_DEM_,providesinpertinentpartthat $  "retroactivecontroldatesareprohibitedandshallnotbeusedor   implemented,unlessexpresslyrequiredbyfederallaw,regulation ,|  orcourtdecision."Theplaintiffsallegethatthedirector ( transgressedthisprohibitionbyadoptingRegulation15.14.26  (whichintheirviewemploysretroactivecontroldates).This 0 chargerestsontheplaintiffs'argumentthatretroactivecontrol , dateswerenotexpresslyrequiredbyfederallawbecausethat  "requirement""supposedlyfoundinAddendumVII"wasunenforceable 4 undertheManagementActor,inthealternative,becauseAmendment 0 3allowsfor"conservationequivalency"measures(and,thus,allowed   RhodeIslandtoproposeanalternativeschemetoachievethegoals 8!" ofAddendumVIIwithoutrecoursetoretroactivecontroldates). "4$  ` Weconcludethattheplaintiffs'wellpleadedcomplaint $& establishesthattheirassertedrighttoreliefunderstatelaw <&!( requiresresolutionofafederalquestion.Toprevailonthe '8#* assertedcauseofaction,theplaintiffshadtoshowthatthe )$, defendantsviolatedR.I.Gen.Laws202.19.This,inturn, @+&. requiredthemtoshow(_i_)thatthedirectormandatedretroactive  controldates,notwithstanding(ii)thatretroactivecontroldates \ werenotcompulsoryunderfederallaw.Thus,itisnotlogically X possiblefortheplaintiffstoprevailonthiscauseofaction   withoutaffirmativelyansweringtheembeddedquestionofwhether `  federallaw,intheformofafisherymanagementplanpromulgated  \  undertheCompact,"expresslyrequired"theuseofretroactive   controldates.Thatisenoughtomakeoutafederalquestion.See d  _Cuyler_v.Adams,449U.S.433,438(1981)(holdingthat `  interpretationofacongressionallysanctionedcompactisaquestion   offederallaw).Nomoreisexigibletosurmountthefirststepof h the_Grable_progression. d  ` Indeed,thequestionofwhetherthedirectoractedoutside  thescopeofhisauthorityinusingretroactivecontroldatesturns l exclusivelyontheantecedent(andembedded)federalquestionof h whetherthatactwasexpresslyrequiredbyfederallaw.Section20  2.19affordsthedirectoragrantofauthoritytoadoptretroactive p  controldatesif,andonlyif,a"federallaw,regulationorcourt !l" decision"expresslyrequirestheiruse.Thus,answeringthestate "$ lawquestionofwhetherthedirectorexceededhisauthority t$& necessarilyentailsansweringtheembeddedfederalquestionof  &p!( whetherfederallawrequiredhimtoactashedid. '#*  ` Ofcourse,afederalpreemptiondefensetoastatelaw x)$, causeofactionisinsufficienttoconferfederalquestion $+t&. jurisdictiononafederalcourt.See_Mottley_,211U.S.at152.The  plaintiffsbeseechus,byanalogy,toapplythatanalysishere.We \ rejecttheirimportunings:althoughtheremaywellbeapreemption X defenselurkinginthewings,_ #  2      _Ԁthatpotentialdefenseisnotthe   hookonwhichweproposetohangfederalquestionjurisdiction. `  Rather,thefederalquestionhereisinherentinthestatelaw  \  questionitselfbecausethestatestatuteexpresslyreferences   federallaw.Cf.FranchiseTax,463U.S.at13(decliningtoextend d  federalquestionjurisdictionwhere"Californialaw_establish[ed_] `  asetofconditions,withoutreferencetofederallaw"(emphasis   supplied)). h  ` Theplaintiffstryinvariouswaystoblunttheforceof d thisreasoning.Theirmostloudlybruitedrefrainisthatthey"do  notchallengethelegality[of]anyprovisionofthe'compact'." l Appellants'Br.at17.Thisisaredherring. h  ` Inthiscase,federaljurisdictiondoesnotdependonthe  legalityofeithertheCompactoroneofitsprovisions.Instead, p  adifferentfederalquestionisinplay:aquestionofwhether !l" AddendumVIIrequiredthe_DEM_Ԁtoinsertretroactivecontroldates  intothestateregulatoryscheme.Itisthislatterquestionthat \ undergirdsthecaseforfederaljurisdiction . X  ` Theplaintiffsalsoarguethattheirclaimsariseunder   RhodeIslandlawand,therefore,notunderfederallaw.This `  argumentsetsupafalsedichotomy.Itpresumesthatclaimscannot  \  simultaneouslyariseunderbothfederalandstatelaw.Thatpremise   isfaulty:federaljurisdictionextendstoacasearisingunder d  federallawregardlessofwhetherthecauseofactionitselfhasits `  genesisinstatelaw.SeeSmith,255U.S.at20102.     ` Lastbutnotleast,theplaintiffspointtotheir h complaintandprotestthattheymentiononlyoncethatthe d defendants"essentiallyadopted...AddendumVII."Intheirview,  thatloneallegation"whichiscontainedinthefactsandtravel l portionofthecomplaint"cannotserveasabasisforfederal h jurisdiction.   ` Thisprotestationiscorrectasfarasitgoes.Federal p  jurisdictioncannotbeconjuredupbyapassingmentionofsome !l" federalsubject.Underthewellpleadedcomplaintrule,allegations "$ inthecomplaintthatareunnecessarytothestatementofthe t$& relevantcauseofactioncannotthemselvessupportaclaimof  &p!( federalquestionjurisdiction.See,e.g.,Baldwinv.Pirelli '#* ArmstrongTireCorp.,927F.Supp.1046,1053(M.D.Tenn.1996);13D x)$, CharlesAlanWright&ArthurR.Miller,FederalPractice&Procedure $+t&. 3566(3ded.1999).Wecanassume,forargument'ssake,thatit  wasnotnecessaryfortheplaintiffstoallegethatthe_DEM_ \ "essentiallyadopted...AddendumVII"and,thus,thatfederal X jurisdictioncouldnotbepremisedonthatallegation.    ` Intheend,thisfavorableassumptionissmallconsolation `  totheplaintiffs.Here,theclaimofentitlementtoafederal  \  forumrestsnotonthereference inthecomplainttoAddendumVII   but,rather,ontheexpressincorporationoffederallawintothe   statestatuteonwhichtheplaintiffs'causeofactionisgrounded. ,|  Thatisahorseofquiteadifferenthue. (  ` 2.Substantiality. Federaljurisdictionbasedonthe  presenceofanembeddedfederalquestionrequiresaquestionthat L isbothactuallydisputedandsubstantial._Grable_,545U.S.at313. H Thisrequirementensuresthatthereisa"seriousfederalinterest  inclaimingtheadvantagesthoughttobeinherentinafederal P forum."Id. L  ` Weneednottarryinresolvingthefirstpartofthis   inquiry.Thepartieshavehotlycontestedtheissueofwhether T!" federallawobligedthe_DEM_Ԁtoembracetheconceptofretroactive #P$ controldates.Thus,thefederalquestionisactuallydisputed. $&  ` Thesecondpartoftheinquirylikewisemustberesolved X&!( inthedefendants'favor.Thereisasignificantfederalinterest (T#*  inmakingcertainthatstatescomplywithfederallysanctioned )%, interstatecompacts.SeeLeaguetoSaveLakeTahoev.Tahoe_Reg'l_  PlanningAgency ,507F.2d517,52324(9thCir.1974). \   ` PriortopassageoftheManagementAct,statecompliance X withinterstatefisherymanagementplanswasvoluntary.That   freedomresultedin"disparate,inconsistent,andintermittentState `  andFederalregulation,"whichproved"detrimentaltothe  \  conservationandsustainableuseof[fishery]resources."16U.S.C.   5101(a)(3).TheseshortcomingspromptedCongresstoadoptthe d  ManagementAct.SeeJosephA._Farside_,Jr.,Note,AtlanticStates `  MarineFisheriesCommission:GettingaGriponSlipperyFisheries   Management,11RogerWilliamsU.L.Rev.231,23839(2005). h  ` TheManagementActdemandsstatecompliancewithfishery d managementplansadoptedpursuanttotheCompact.See16U.S.C.  5104(b)(1).Inthatregard,theActmakesitpellucidthata l singlestate'sfailure"tofullyimplementacoastalfishery h managementplancanaffectthestatusofAtlanticcoastalfisheries,  andcandiscourageotherStatesfromfullyimplementingcoastal p  fisherymanagementplans."Id.5101(a)(5). !l"  ` Inaddition,thereisasubstantialfederalinterestin "$ ensuringthatactionstakeninpursuanceoftheManagementAct t$& receivetheuniformityofinterpretationthatafederalforum  &p!( offers.ThisinterestisunderscoredbythefactthatCongress '#* adoptedtheManagementAct,inpart,toachievegreaterconsistency x)$, intheregulationoffisheries.Seeid.5101(a)(3). $+t&.   ` 3.TheFederalStateBalance. Evenifasubstantialand  actuallydisputedfederalquestionisembeddedinastatelawclaim, x federaljurisdictionwillnotattachifitsexercisewill"disturb[] $t anycongressionallyapprovedbalanceoffederalandstatejudicial   responsibilities."_Grable_,545U.S.at314.Consequently,wemust |  determinewhetherfederaljurisdictionis"consistentwith ( x  congressionaljudgmentaboutthesounddivisionoflaborbetween $  stateandfederalcourts."FranchiseTax,463U.S.at8.    ` Congresscouldhave,butdidnot,specificallyassigned ,|  disputestouchingupontheinterpretationofinterstatecompactsto ( eitherthefederalorstatejudicialsystems.Thelegislative  background,therefore,isconsistentwithadivisionof 0 responsibilitiesbetweenthetwocourtsystems. ,  ` _Merrell_ԀDowPharmaceuticalsInc.v.Thompson,478U.S.804  (1986),exemplifiesacaseinwhichexerciseoffederaljurisdiction 4 overanembeddedfederalquestionwoulddisturbthebalanceof 0 federalandstatejudicialresponsibilities.There,theplaintiff   filedastatetortactionalleging,amongotherthings,thata 8!" pharmaceuticalmanufacturer'sfailuretofurnishanadequatewarning "4$ foraproductviolatedtheFederalFood,Drug,andCosmeticAct,21 $& U.S.C.301et.seq.,andthereforecreatedarebuttable <&!( presumptionofnegligence.478U.S.at80506.This,thedefendant '8#* said,createdanembeddedfederalquestionand,thus,supported )$, removalofthecasetofederalcourt. @+&.  ` TheSupremeCourtdisagreed.Becauseitisacommon  featureofstatetortlawthatviolationofanystatutemaygive \ risetoapresumptionofnegligence,seeRestatementofTorts14, X Reporters'Note,_cmt_.a(Tent.DraftNo.1,2001),extendingfederal   jurisdictionwouldhave"attractedahordeoforiginalfilingsand `  removalcases"tofederalcourts"casesinwhichstatetortactions  \  werepremisedonviolationsoffederalregulations._Grable_,545   U.S.at318(discussing_Merrell_ԀDow).TheCourtdeemedithighly d  doubtfulthatCongressintendedtopermitaseismicshiftintort `  litigationfromstatetofederalcourtsonthebasisofthe   regulationsatissue,particularlysinceCongresshadneither h preemptedstateremediesinthefieldnorcreatedaprivatefederal d rightofactiontoenforcetheregulation.Seeid.at319.The  "threateningstructuralconsequences"ofopeningthegatesto l federalquestionjurisdictionguidedtheCourt'sdecisiontoreject h theclaimoffederalquestionjurisdiction.Id.    ` Thiscaseisquitedifferent.Thestatutoryprovisionat p  issue,R.I.Gen.Laws202.19,issuigeneris:theRhodeIsland !l" GeneralAssembly'sdecisiontomakethelimitsofstateagency "$ authoritydependentonfederallawisanoddapproach,notfoundin t$& anycasetowhichthepartieshavedirectedus.Toholdthata  &p!( claimunderthisuniquestatutecansupportfederalquestion '#*  jurisdictionwillnotraisethespecterofthreateningstructural x)$, _consequences_Ԁ(and,thus,willnotdisturbthedelicatebalanceof  federalandstatejudicialpower). \   ` Tocinchmatters,itishighlyunlikelythattherewill X bemanyadditionalsuitsundersection202.19,letalonea"horde   ofcases"wending theirwaytofederalcourts.Pastisprologue, `  seeWilliamShakespeare,TheTempestact2,sc.1(circa1610),and  \  itdoesnotappearthatthestatutehasgeneratedanysuitother   thanthisone. d   ` Tosaymoreonthispointwouldbesupererogatory.We `  concludeboththat_Merrell_ԀDowisdistinguishableandthatthe   exerciseoffederaljurisdictionoveracauseofactionpredicated h onsection202.19"wouldnotmateriallyaffect,orthreatento d affect,thenormalcurrentsoflitigation."_Grable_,545U.S.at  31920.Thereis,therefore,insufficientcause"toshirkfrom l federaljurisdictionoverthedispositiveandcontestedfederal h issue"thatliesattheepicenterofthisaction. #  3      ׀Id.    ` 4.Recapitulation. Tosumup,inthiscaseallroadslead p  toRome.Thereisanembeddedfederalquestion;answeringitis 8!" necessarytoaresolutionoftheassertedstatelawcauseofaction; "4$ thatquestionisbothactuallydisputedandsubstantial;and $& decidingitinafederalforumwillnottiltanycongressionally <&!( approvedbalanceoffederalandstatejudicialpower.Accordingly,  weholdthatthedistrictcourthadjurisdictionovertheactionand \ didnoterrindenyingtheplaintiffs'motiontoremand. X Ѐ@QQ" B.TheMerits.     ` Thisbringsustothemerits.Thereisnoneedtotarry. |   ` Theplaintiffs'_asseverational_Ԁarrayinvolvesclaimsthat ( x  thecontestedregulationviolatestheRhodeIslandConstitutionand $  amyriadofstatestatutoryprovisions.SeeR.I.Gen.Laws20   2.19,2079,42353,42353.3.Thisonslaughtboilsdowntotwo ,|  principalassertions.First,theplaintiffspositthatthe ( challengedregulationabridgestheirfundamentalrightofequal  accesstothefisheries,anddeniesthemequalprotection,R.I. 0 Const.art.I,2,17.Second,theymaintainthattheCommission , didnotreallymandatetheuseofretroactivecontroldateswhen  AddendumVIIwasadoptedand,thus,thechallengedregulation 4 offendsR.I.Gen.Laws202.19.Thedistrictcourtpatiently 0 explainedwhyneitheroftheseassertionsholdswater.See_RIFA_ԀII,   2008WL4467186,at*511(rejectingargumentsbasedonstate 8!" constitution);id.at*1214(rejectingplaintiffs'suggested "4$ interpretationofAddendumVII).Thecourtalsoconvincingly $& dispatchedtheplaintiffs'argumentsarisingoutofotherRhode <&!( Islandstatutes.See,e.g.,id.at*1112,*1416. '8#*  ` Weoftenhavesaid,andtodayreaffirm,thatwhenatrial )$, courtaddressesissuessquarelyandindetail,writesapersuasive @+&. _opinion_Ԁthatfaithfullyappliesthelawtothefacts,andreaches  acorrectresult,thereisnoneedforareviewingcourttowrite \ atlengthmerelytohearitsownwordsresonate.See,e.g.,Vargas X Ruiz_v._ԀGoldenArchDev.,Inc.,368F.3d1,2(1stCir.2004)   (_collecting_Ԁcases);Henry_v._ԀConnolly,910F.2d1000,1002(1stCir. `  1990). Thisispreciselysuchaninstance.  \   ` Here,thedistrictcourtwroteathoughtfuland   comprehensiverescriptexplainingitsmultifacetedrationalefor d  rebuffingtheplaintiffs'challengetothecontestedregulationand `  grantedsummaryjudgmentaccordingly.Welargelyagreewiththe   reasoningsetforthinthelowercourt'srescript,andupholdits h meritsrulingforsubstantiallythereasonssetforthinthat d opinion.   III.CONCLUSION l  ` Weneedgonofurther.Forthereasonselucidatedabove, 4 weaffirmboththedistrictcourt'sdenialoftheplaintiffs'motion 0 to_remandanditsgrant_Ԁofsummaryjudgmentinfavorofthe   defendants. 8!"  Affirmed.