Pacific Choice Seafood Company, et al. v. Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.

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.