Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a precedent dating to 1984's Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that instructed judges about when they could defer to federal agencies' interpretations of law in rulemaking. The 6-3 decision along party lines results in uncertainty about how courts will handle future litigation.
Today's decision for Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce is a win for the fishing industry that brought it forward and introduces debate for lower courts about how to weigh competing legal arguments in rulemaking litigation.
What does this have to do with Immigration?
In a May 2023 EIG Policy Bulletin, we shared that the implications of a decision in this case could affect most if not all, federal agencies by limiting the authority they currently exercise to interpret and implement statutes and issue regulations.
Go deeper: The case asks the Court to overturn or clarify a doctrine known as Chevron deference, under which the courts defer to the statutory interpretations of the federal agencies tasked with implementing those statutes.
- Past administrations, particularly Democrats, have relied on the Chevron doctrine to give executive branch agencies broad authority and flexibility to enact regulations on a wide range of subjects, including environmental issues, workplace regulations, and immigration enforcement when Congress has either been unwilling to act or has enacted only general guidelines.
- Proponents of Chevron point out that agencies have specialized expertise in various fields that allow them to write detailed and complex regulations that would be beyond the scope and abilities of Congress.
- In recent years, however, conservatives, including those on the Supreme Court, have begun to narrow the Chevron doctrine or treat it as a much looser standard. Critics of the Chevron doctrine argue that it gives too much power to the executive branch agencies and strips the judicial branch of its role in interpreting the law.
The decision has the potential to weaken executive branch authority across the board, including the roles in regulating and enforcing immigration laws; and will, in turn, increase the power of the judicial branch to interpret the laws passed by Congress and invalidate agency rules and regulations.
- Judiciary Braces for Case Spike If Supreme Court Guts Chevron Suzanne Monyak | Bloomberg Government, 02/13/24 If the Supreme Court overturns the Chevron Doctrine, federal judges would be tasked with making more rulings on immigration policy. Overturning Chevron would also slow federal rule-making as agencies will tend to be more conservative and prudent.
- Supreme Court Eyes World War II Era Doctrine for Agency Rules Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson | Bloomberg Government, 01/19/24 The Supreme Court is considering a case regarding the Chevron doctrine, which requires Judges to defer to agencies when the agency provides a reasonable interpretation of a statute. The Justices are considering having a doctrine known as Skidmore govern decisions in the future. Skidmore is considered less friendly to agencies and could fundamentally change immigration policy nationwide by moving contested issues into the federal court system.
