Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine: Impact on Immigrants

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways:

The Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, impacting federal regulations and extending to environment, safety, consumer protections, and immigration.
Courts must now determine the “single, best meaning” of statutes, balancing agency views with traditional statutory construction principles.
Immigration outcomes may vary; while potential benefits exist, programs like DACA face increased legal challenges post-Chevron deference removal.

What Did the Supreme Court’s Decision on Chevron Deference Change?

On June 28, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning the long-standing Chevron deference. This decision is seen as a major victory for deregulation. However, its impact is poised to extend beyond just federal agencies, affecting various fields such as the environment, food and drug safety, consumer protections, and possibly even immigration.

Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine: Impact on Immigrants

What Was Chevron Deference?

The Chevron deference originated from the 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC. It instructed courts to defer to an agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutes it administers. Essentially, if a statute was unclear, agencies had the primary say in interpreting it. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority determined that this deference contradicts both the judiciary’s historic role and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that deferring too much to executive agencies undermines the independent judiciary’s role to interpret laws. According to Roberts, “Congress expects courts to do their ordinary job of interpreting statutes, with due respect for the views of the Executive Branch.” This sentiment aligns with the court’s foundational ruling in Marbury v. Madison, which highlighted that it is the court’s role “to say what the law is.”

Despite arguments regarding the judiciary’s lack of expertise in technical fields, as well as concerns about inconsistency and policy-making, Roberts and the majority concluded that Chevron deference was flawed. The key issue was that it prevented “judges . . . from judging.”

How Will Courts Handle Cases Moving Forward?

Post-Loper Bright, courts must determine the “single, best meaning” of statutes using traditional tools of statutory construction. This means the legal landscape will change significantly, as federal agencies and those challenging their decisions are now on more equal footing.

Agency views will still hold weight, especially if they reflect long-standing and consistent interpretations. This follows principles first laid out in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. in 1994, where an agency’s persuasiveness determines its influence. Furthermore, if Congress has granted agencies specific discretion in their duties, courts will assess whether the agency acted within its delegated authority and exercised “reasoned decision-making” under the APA.

What Is the Impact on Immigrants?

The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on Chevron deference for immigrants are multifaceted. Immigration cases might see varied outcomes depending on whether they involve removal proceedings, applications for benefits from USCIS, or programs initiated by the Executive branch.

For instance, DHS had already started arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the Attorney General authority over immigration law matters. This argument is seen as implausible because INA § 103(a)(1) only resolves internal executive branch disagreements about immigration laws. Yet, hostile judges might still defer to detrimental agency interpretations or rely on their “judging.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his concurrence that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) often construes the INA in ways harmful to immigrants, expanding grounds for removability and limiting relief availability. Ending Chevron deference could allow circuit courts more freedom to overrule BIA decisions, benefiting those in removal proceedings. Moreover, federal district court judges might be more willing to overturn USCIS decisions denying individual benefits like green cards.

What Risks Do Immigrants Face After This Decision?

There are, however, potential downsides. Programs providing benefits to larger immigrant groups, like DACA, could be further endangered. DACA, frequently challenged for not being authorized by federal law, is one such program at risk. Additionally, USCIS regulations offering employment eligibility to spouses of certain employment-based immigrants and international students in technical fields may face more significant legal challenges.

If a future administration seeks to implement anti-immigrant policies, the Loper Bright decision could become a tool for advocates to challenge those new regulations.

What Can Immigrants and Advocates Do?

Immigration advocates must be well-prepared to present their statutory interpretations using all traditional tools of statutory construction. Legal defenses should be crafted based on a solid understanding of statutory text and legislative history.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent in Corner Post v. Board of Governors, this decision is likely to bring about a “tsunami of lawsuits against agencies.” This wave of litigation could prove beneficial for some immigrants.

Resources for More Information

For those seeking detailed information on the impact of Chevron deference and its implications on immigration, VisaVerge.com provides extensive resources and updates. You can also visit the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website for authoritative insights on immigration policies and procedures.

How Will This Decision Shape the Future?

The Supreme Court’s ruling indeed signifies a monumental shift not just in regulatory practices but also in judicial responsibilities. By removing Chevron deference, the court has reshaped the balance of power between the judiciary and executive agencies. While this promises more judicial oversight, it simultaneously brings a fresh set of challenges and opportunities, particularly for the immigration sector. The future will reveal how these changes play out in courts across the country and impact the lives of countless immigrants.

Learn Today:

Glossary of Immigration Terms

1. Chevron Deference:
A legal principle from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. NRDC, which instructed courts to defer to a federal agency’s “reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous laws that the agency administers.
2. Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
A U.S. federal statute that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations, including ensuring public participation, transparency, and judicial review of agency actions.
3. Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA):
The highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws in the United States, which reviews decisions made by immigration judges and certain Department of Homeland Security officers.
4. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
The foundational body of U.S. immigration law, which provides the legal framework for immigration, including visas, asylum, and deportation processes.
5. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals):
A U.S. immigration policy allowing some individuals brought to the country illegally as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit.

This Article In A Nutshell:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended Chevron deference, shifting power from federal agencies to courts. This affects areas like environmental regulations and immigration. Courts will now use traditional statutory interpretation, offering more oversight and potentially altering legal landscapes significantly.
— By VisaVerge.com

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. If you reference or use any content from this article, please attribute it to VisaVerge.com by including a link to the original source. We appreciate your adherence to our content usage policies and your commitment to giving proper credit.