Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied deference to PBGC's interpretations of ambiguous ERISA provisions and ignored substantial harm to the petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When an underfunded pension plan that is covered by Title IV of the ; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) terminates, Respondent Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC") must pay benefits up to the statutory limit, regardless of the level of plan assets. PBGC determines those benefits according to ERISA’s complex provisions governing the guarantee and the allocation of plan assets and recoveries. If a participant is dissatisfied with PBGC's initial détermination of his or her statutory benefit, the participant may file an appeal with PBGC’s Appeals Board (“Appeals Board”), an independent adjudicatory body within the agency. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 4003.1, 4003.2, 4003.55, 4003.58. The Appeals Board will then reach a decision after considering PBGC’s file and all material submitted by the participant and any third parties. 29 C.F-R. § 4003.59. The Appeals Board’s decision constitutes the final agency action, after which the participant may seek judicial review of PBGC's determination. 1. Was the court of appeals correct in applying deference to PBGC’s interpretations of ambiguous provisions in Title IV of ERISA regarding 5 U.S.C § 706(2)(A)? 2. Was the court of appeals correct by ignoring substantial harm to the petitioner by leaving a want of unaddressed issues that were set before the court? 3. Was the court of appeals action contrary to constitutional rights? . 2