Overturning of the Chevron Doctrine and its Implications for Immigration Law

By: Maia Ottaggio | 08/04/24

 

The Supreme Court's 1984 establishment of the Chevron doctrine mandated that courts accept the declarations of federal agencies regarding unclear legislation. The concept made it possible for specialized agencies to consistently enforce complex regulations. Thanks to Chevron deference, agencies were able to operate effectively without continuous judicial intervention.

 

Chevron was employed by organizations such the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to interpret intricate immigration laws. This made it possible for these organizations to use their expertise to consistently apply immigration regulations.  For example, Chevron's support of immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals may create a consistent and predictable approach to immigration enforcement.

 

Without judicial deference, courts will now be free to interpret immigration statutes in their own ways, which might cause delays and inconsistent decisions. Due to varying judicial interpretations, similar cases may result in differing conclusions, making the immigration system more unpredictable. As more people and organizations file legal challenges against agency decisions, more litigation is also probably in line. Due to the increased workload on the judiciary, immigration issues may take longer to resolve, which would cause uncertainty for immigrants and their families.

 

It is essential that everyone concerned in immigration matters remain aware of these changes. Understanding the shifts in judicial techniques might help us in being ready for any legal obstacles that may arise throughout immigration procedures.