Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross

Last updated

Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross (Docket No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB) is a United States District Court case in the District of Columbia in which the court determined whether or not a President may establish a marine national monument, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. [1] [2] The case represents the first time that the President's authority to create an offshore marine monument under the Act was directly challenged in court. [3] [4] While the District Court upheld the President's authority to designate the monument under the authority bestowed by the Antiquities Act, the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit (Docket No. 18-05353) and awaits further judicial review. [5] [6]

Contents

History

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument boundaries. Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument map NOAA.png
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument boundaries.

On September 15, 2016, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation creating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. [7] [8] As the first marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean, it consists of approximately 4,913 square miles (12,724 square kilometers) and is located about 130 miles east-southeast of Cape Cod in an area of the ocean known as the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). [9] [10]

The monument includes two distinct areas. The first area covers three underwater canyons—Oceanographer, Gilbert, and Lydonia—spanning roughly 941 square miles. The second area covers four distinct seamounts—Bear, Physalia, Retriever, and Mytilus—encompassing 3,972 square miles. [11] [12] Collectively, the monument is approximately the size of Connecticut. [13]

The canyons and seamounts are celebrated for their rich biological diversity. The steep slopes of the canyons and seamounts interact with oceanographic currents to create localized eddies, causing upwelling. [14] [15] The currents lift nutrients to surface waters, fueling an outburst of phytoplankton and zooplankton that form the base of the food chain. These plankton draw large schools of small fish, and those fish draw even larger predators such as whales, sharks, tunas and seabirds to the area. [16] [17] In all, “the geology, currents, and productivity create diverse and vibrant ecosystems.” [18] As a result, the area has been the subject of “intense scientific interest” and discovery since the 1970s. [19] [20]

President Obama's proclamation directs the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to develop plans within three years for the “proper care and management” of the monument. [21] Further, the proclamation prohibits oil, gas and mineral exploration, and most commercial fishing within the monument's boundaries. [22]

In response to the monument's designation, several commercial fishing associations filed a lawsuit against the federal government in March 2017. [23] They claimed injury from the restrictions on commercial fishing, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief from the President, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, and the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. [24]

Parties and amici curiae

The plaintiffs in this case include the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Garden State Seafood Association and the Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance. [25] They are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation. [26] Secretary Ross, Benjamin Friedman of NOAA, Secretary Zinke and Donald Trump are all named defendants. [27] Several conservationist groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the Center for Biological Diversity also participated as intervenors in support of the federal government. [28] [29]

The court also received two separate amicus briefs from groups of law professors. The first was prepared by Professors Alison Rieser, Donna R. Christie, and Josh Eagle, and focused on principles of international law of the sea. [30] The second was prepared by Professors Robin Kundis Craig, Randall S. Abate, Robert T. Anderson, Bret Birdsong, Victor B. Flatt, Richard Hildreth, Blake Hudson, Cymie R. Payne, Zygmunt J.B. Plater, Edward P. Richards, Keith W. Rizzardi, Stephen E. Roady, and Rachael E. Salcido, and focused on how the Antiquities Act applies to submerged lands under domestic law. [31] Both briefs concluded that the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was consistent with the President's authority under the Antiquities Act. [32] [33]

The key legal issue addressed in the case is whether or not the President has the authority under the Antiquities Act to create the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. [34]

The Antiquities Act authorizes the President of the United States, in their discretion, to declare “objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments.” [35] It further authorizes the President to “reserve parcels of land as a part of the national monuments.” [36] Any parcel must be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” [37]

In asserting their case, the plaintiffs argued that the President lacked the authority under the Antiquities Act to declare the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts a national monument. [38] They put forward three main arguments. First, they argued that the submerged lands of the Canyons and Seamounts are not “lands” within the meaning of the Antiquities Act. [39] Secondly, they argued that the federal government does not “control” the lands on which the Canyons and Seamounts lie under the meaning of the Act. [40] Finally, they argued that the amount of land reserved as part of the monument is not the smallest compatible with its management. [41]

The government sought dismissal of the case under rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the case is not judicially reviewable and that the President did not exceed his statutory authority under the Antiquities Act. [42] The conservationist-intervenors filed a response in support of the federal defendant's motion to dismiss, but argued separately that while the court may review a Presidential monument proclamation, the court should dismiss the plaintiff's complaint because it fails to state a claim for relief under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [43]

Ruling

The case was decided by United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James E. Boasberg, who on October 5, 2018, [44] granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. [45] In doing so, the court made four important holdings. Firstly, the court rejected the contention that presidential exercise of authority to designate a national monument is not judicially reviewable. [46] [47] Secondly, the court held that the term “lands” within the Act includes the submerged lands of the ocean floor. [48] Thirdly, the court held that the federal government adequately controls the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone for the purposes of the Act. [49] Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Monument is too large. [50]

The Supreme Court has upheld or discussed the application of the Antiquities Act to the submerged lands of three different national monuments along the American coastline and inland water bodies, however, they have not yet ruled on the application of the Antiquities Act to marine monument designations located exclusively beyond the territorial sea. [51] [52] The District Court's holding represents the first time a court has squarely considered whether the President has the authority under the Antiquities Act to create a marine national monument located entirely within the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends beyond the territorial sea. [53] [54]

Subsequent litigation

In December 2018 the plaintiffs notified the District Court of their decision to appeal the case. [55] The case will soon be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit. The plaintiff-appellants filed their opening brief on April 8, 2019. [56] Defendant-appellees and intervenors submitted their reply briefs on May 29, 2019. [57] All briefing will be complete in July. [58]

Although litigating a separate issue under the Antiquities Act, this District Court opinion has already been cited by litigants on both sides of the ongoing dispute over President Trump's reduction of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument. [59] The litigants each use the case to advance differing views of Presidential discretion and authority under the Act. For example, the opinion was used to support the argument that the President has broad discretion under the Antiquities Act to both create and shrink a national monument, and for the notion that Congressional acquiescence to Presidential action is germane to a court's consideration of the President's authority under the Act. [60] The opinion has also been cited to emphasize that the President's authority under the Act is bound by the Act's preservationist purpose, and therefore is not unlimited. [61]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument</span> National monument in Kane and Garfield counties in Utah, United States

The Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) is a United States national monument protecting the Grand Staircase, the Kaiparowits Plateau, and the Canyons of the Escalante in southern Utah. It was established in 1996 by President Bill Clinton under the authority of the Antiquities Act with 1.7 million acres of land, later expanded to 1,880,461 acres (7,610 km2). In 2017, the monument's size was reduced by half in a succeeding presidential proclamation, and it was restored in 2021. The land is among the most remote in the country; it was the last to be mapped in the contiguous United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National monument (United States)</span> Monuments assigned protected status by presidents of the US

In the United States, a national monument is a protected area that can be created from any land owned or controlled by the federal government by proclamation of the president of the United States or an act of Congress. National monuments protect a wide variety of natural and historic resources, including sites of geologic, marine, archaeological, and cultural importance. In contrast, national parks in the U.S. must be created by Congressional legislation. Some national monuments were first created by presidential action and later designated as national parks by congressional approval.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antiquities Act</span> 1906 U.S. law allowing the president to create national monuments from federal lands

The Antiquities Act of 1906, is an act that was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on June 8, 1906. This law gives the president of the United States the authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from federal lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features. The Act has been used more than a hundred times since its enactment.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gladys Kessler</span> American judge (1938–2023)

Gladys Kessler was a United States district judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New England Seamounts</span> Chain of more than 20 seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean

The New England Seamounts is a chain of over twenty underwater extinct volcanic mountains known as seamounts. This chain is located off the coast of Massachusetts in the Atlantic Ocean and extends over 1,000 km from the edge of Georges Bank. Many of the peaks of these mountains rise over 4,000 m from the seabed. The New England Seamounts chain is the longest such chain in the North Atlantic and is home to a diverse range of deep sea fauna. Scientists have visited the chain on various occasions to survey the geologic makeup and biota of the region. The chain is part of the Great Meteor hotspot track and was formed by the movement of the North American Plate over the New England hotspot. The oldest volcanoes that were formed by the same hotspot are northwest of Hudson Bay, Canada. Part of the seamount chain is protected by Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith, four former Guantánamo Bay detainees, filed suit in 2004 in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They charged that illegal interrogation tactics were permitted to be used against them by Secretary Rumsfeld and the military chain of command. The plaintiffs each sought seek compensatory damages for torture and arbitrary detention while being held at Guantánamo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guantanamo Bay hunger strikes</span> Series of protests by Guantanamo Bay detainees

The Guantanamo Bay Hunger Strikes were a series of prisoner protests at the U.S. detention camp Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. The first hunger strikes began in 2002 when the camp first opened, but the secrecy of the camp's operations prevented news of those strikes from reaching the public. The first widely reported hunger strikes occurred in 2005.

<i>Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki</i> American legal case

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266, is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of laches bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.

<i>Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act.

Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges was an antitrust class-action lawsuit that alleged collusion to prevent American trainee doctors from negotiating for better working conditions. The working conditions of medical residents often involved 80- to 100-hour workweeks. The suit had some early success but failed when the US Congress enacted a statute exempting matching programs from federal antitrust laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument</span> Marine protected area off of Massachusetts, USA

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is a marine national monument of the United States off the coast of New England, on the seaward edge of Georges Bank. It was created by President Barack Obama on September 15, 2016, as the first U.S. marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marine policy of the Barack Obama administration</span>

The Marine Policy of the Barack Obama administration comprises several significant environmental policy decisions for the oceans made during his two terms in office from 2009 to 2017. By executive action, US President Barack Obama increased fourfold the amount of protected marine space in waters under United States control, setting a major precedent for global ocean conservation. Using the U.S. president's authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, he expanded to 200 nautical miles the seaward limits of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaiʻi and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument around the U.S. island possessions in the Central Pacific. In the Atlantic, Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, the first marine monument in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Atlantic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13792</span>

Executive Order 13792, entitled "Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act," is an executive order issued by US President Donald Trump on April 26, 2017, that directed the Secretary of the Interior to review designations of national monuments made since 1996. The order applies to all new monuments greater than 100,000 acres in size and monuments that were expanded by at least 100,000 acres. Twenty-two land monuments and five marine monuments that were created by the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were subject to review.

<i>CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP</i> Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, No. 1:17-cv-01228, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the archivist National Security Archive, allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump and elements of the Executive Office of the President, are in violation of the Presidential Records Act by deleting electronic messages on Twitter and using other electronic messaging applications without required archival records.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. was a case in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held several major tobacco companies liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act by engaging in numerous acts of fraud to further a conspiracy to deceive the American public about nicotine addiction and the health effects of cigarettes and environmental tobacco smoke.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act</span>

The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act is a United States Act of Congress that became federal law in 1983. The CCPIA implemented the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. It restricts the importation of some archaeological and ethnological materials into the United States from other State Parties to the Convention.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.

References

  1. ↑ "349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018)".
  2. ↑ "54 U.S.C. § 320301 et seq".
  3. ↑ Yoo, John; Gaziano, Todd (Summer 2018). "Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations". Yale Journal on Regulation. 35 (617): 23.
  4. ↑ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant-Intervenor Applicants' Motion to Intervene at 5-6, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018), (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  5. ↑ Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 51.
  6. ↑ "Notice of Appeal, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018) (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB)".
  7. ↑ "Presidential Proclamation -- Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, September 15, 2016".
  8. ↑ "First Marine National Monument Created in the Atlantic" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  9. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  10. ↑ "Proclamation at 2-3".
  11. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  12. ↑ "Proclamation at 1".
  13. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  14. ↑ "Proclamation at 2".
  15. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  16. ↑ "Presidential Proclamation at 2".
  17. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  18. ↑ "Presidential Proclamation at 2".
  19. ↑ Proclamation at 4.
  20. ↑ "Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument" . Retrieved May 27, 2019.
  21. ↑ "Proclamation at 4".
  22. ↑ Id. at 5.
  23. ↑ Complaint, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018) (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  24. ↑ Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.
  25. ↑ Id. at ¶¶ 7-13.
  26. ↑ Id. at 16.
  27. ↑ Id. at ¶¶ 14-18.
  28. ↑ Motion to Intervene, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018) (No: 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  29. ↑ Minute Order Granting Motion to Intervene, 349 F. Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2018).
  30. ↑ Brief for Alison Rieser et al. as Amici Curiae, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018) (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  31. ↑ Brief for Robin Kundis Craig et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendant-Intervenors and Federal Defendants, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018) (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  32. ↑ Brief for Robin Kundis Craig et al. at 2, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d. 48 (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  33. ↑ Brief for Alison Rieser et al. at 2, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d. 48 (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  34. ↑ Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 51.
  35. ↑ 54 U.S.C. § 320301(a).
  36. ↑ Id. §320301(b).
  37. ↑ Id.
  38. ↑ Compl., ¶¶ 3-4.
  39. ↑ Compl. ¶ 71. See also Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 at 55-56.
  40. ↑ Compl. ¶ 71 . See also Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association , 349 F. Supp. 3d at 60.
  41. ↑ Compl. at ¶¶ 72-75.
  42. ↑ Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018), (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  43. ↑ Intervenors' Response in Support of Federal Defendant's Motion to Dismiss at 1-2, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018), (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  44. ↑ Green, Miranda; Cama, Timothy (October 5, 2018). "Judge upholds Obama's marine monument". The Hill . Archived from the original on October 5, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
  45. ↑ Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 51.
  46. ↑ Id. at 54.
  47. ↑ Coggins, George Cameron; Glicksman, Robert L. (2019). "3". Public Natural Resources Law, Second Edition. pp. 3:23.
  48. ↑ Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 55-60.
  49. ↑ Id. at 60-67.
  50. ↑ Id. at 67-68.
  51. ↑ See Cappaert v. United States , 426 U.S. 128 (1976); United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32 (1978); Alaska v. United States, 545 U.S. 75 (2005).
  52. ↑ Yoo, John; Gaziano, Todd (Summer 2018). "Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations". Yale Journal on Regulation. 35 (617): 23.
  53. ↑ Yoo, John; Gaziano, Todd (Summer 2018). "Presidential Authority to Revoke or Reduce National Monument Designations". Yale Journal on Regulation. 35 (617): 23.
  54. ↑ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant-Intervenor Applicants' Motion to Intervene at 5-6, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2018), (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB).
  55. ↑ "Notice of Appeal, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, 349 F. Supp. 3d 48 (2018) (No. 1:17-cv-00406-JEB)".
  56. ↑ Appellant's Opening Brief, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, No. 18-5353, (D.C. Cir. filed Apr. 8, 2019).
  57. ↑ Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, No. 18-5353 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
  58. ↑ "Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross". NRDC. Retrieved May 29, 2019.
  59. ↑ See Wilderness Society v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-02587); Hopi Tribe v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-2590); Grand Staircase Escalante Partners v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-2591); Utah Dine Bikeyah v. Trump (No. 1:17-cv-2605); Natural Resource Defense Council v. Trump, No. 1: 17- cv- 2606).
  60. ↑ Consolidated Opening Brief of Intervenors State of Utah, San Juan County, American Farm Bureau Federation, and Utah Farm Bureau Federation Supporting Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 16, 20, Hopi Tribe v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-02590-TSC (D.D.C. filed Feb. 15, 2019).
  61. ↑ Plaintiffs' Joint Response in Opposition to Intervenors American Farm Bureau Federation et al.'s Opening Brief Supporting Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at 5, Wilderness Society v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-2587 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 1, 2019).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.