The Demise of “Chevron Deference”: How the Recent Supreme Court Decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo Could Change Immigration Practice
/The 6/28/2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., made national headlines because of its wide-ranging impact on the federal agencies that generate, implement, and enforce regulations. In its decision, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) – a 40-year-old precedent decision which held that when federal statutes are ambiguous, courts should defer to the relevant federal agency’s interpretation of how to apply them. In Loper Bright, a 6-3 conservative majority held that Chevron should be struck down as it conflicts with the federal judiciary’s constitutional role and with the Administrative Procedure Act, which instructs federal judges to “decide all relevant questions of law.” By limiting the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies, courts are no longer required to defer to them as to how to best interpret a statute. This opens the door to judicial challenges of agency decisions in every area of regulated law, including immigration and naturalization. Given that USCIS relies heavily on agency interpretations in its adjudications, Loper Bright now provides an opening for immigration advocates to challenge what they believe are improper statutory interpretations in court. At the same time, some argue that programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) could be negatively impacted since DACA’s very existence is based on agency interpretation of an existing statute.
Link: To read the full Supreme Court decision: Opinions of the Court - 2023 (supremecourt.gov)
