On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning the long-standing precedent established in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Since 1983, Chevron had guided courts to afford deference to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous sections within parts of statutes, effectively allowing agencies to shape regulatory frameworks with minimal judicial scrutiny. The recent decision signals a significant shift in administrative law that is poised to have far-reaching consequences, particularly in the realm of immigration.
Key Takeaways from Loper Bright
In a 6-3 decision led by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court concluded that the Chevron framework undermines the judiciary's constitutional role to interpret the law.
Chief Justice Roberts succinctly declared, "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority."
The ruling also clarified that prior cases decided under the Chevron standard remain unaffected, preserving their legal standings under the principle of stare decisis.
Moving forward, courts will now apply Skidmore deference, a significantly lower standard that grants agency interpretations respect only to the extent they have the "power to persuade." This shift may alter how federal courts evaluate agency decisions, including those made by immigration authorities.
Impact on Immigration Law
The ramifications of the Loper Bright decision will not be uniformly experienced across the immigration landscape, and there will be both opportunities and challenges for immigration attorneys and their clients as they navigate this new legal terrain, as well as consequences arising from the reduced deference previously afforded to immigration agency decision-making.
For instance, while employers seeking H-1B or L visa classifications may find courts more receptive to their arguments against restrictive interpretations from immigration agencies, the former Chevron deference had helped when the immigration agency sought to provide employment authorization benefits, such as those under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program or F-1 optional practical training.
The Loper Bright ruling makes judicial review of decisions and actions by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection more likely, which may lead to increased litigation and challenges against agency actions across various facets of immigration law.
The U.S. Department of Justice is expected to continue advocating for substantial deference to immigration agency decisions, arguing that the Immigration and Nationality Act provides an express delegation of interpretive authority. However, critics contend that this interpretation does not grant the agency a blanket authority to dictate legal standards. As the legal landscape evolves, the ongoing debate over the interpretation of the INA's provisions will be crucial in determining the future of immigration law.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fundamentally reshapes administrative law by overturning the Chevron precedent, reinforcing the judiciary's role in statutory interpretation. This shift to Skidmore deference introduces a new standard that may empower courts to scrutinize agency actions more rigorously, particularly in immigration law.
As we adjust to this landscape, there will be both opportunities and challenges. While there may be greater scope for legal challenges against restrictive agency interpretations, the reduced deference could complicate the enforcement of beneficial policies such as DACA. The anticipated increase in litigation around immigration agency decisions underscores the necessity for comprehensive immigration reform.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.