The Ninth Circuit below applied deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to a statutory interpretation that was not made by a federal agency. The Pacific Fishery Management Council—an entity that advises the Secretary of Commerce on the management of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—adopted an interpretation of the statutory term "excessive share" to mean a limit on the fishery quota that guarantees every fishery participant "a chance at generating a reasonable profit." The Pacific Fishery Management Council then proposed regulations setting the excessive share limit at 2.7% based on that interpretation, and the Secretary adopted the 2.7% limit without discussing the statutory interpretation underlying that percentage. The Ninth Circuit then deferred to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's "excessive share" interpretation. Petitioners, who collectively owned approximately 5% of the quota, were forced to divest their quota shares to meet this excessive share limit.

The question presented is whether a court should defer, under Chevron, to an interpretation made by an advisory council that is not itself a federal agency, as part of that court's review of regulations issued by the Secretary of Commerce.

Whether a court should defer, under Chevron, to an interpretation made by an advisory council that is not itself a federal agency, as part of that court's review of regulations issued by the Secretary of Commerce