Every once in a while, I decide to get off my high horse and talk a little more (immigration) law than usual. This is one of those times.
Many people don’t pay much attention to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unless they see a decision as directly affecting them. Most are obvious. In June, though, SCOTUS issued its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.,[1] in which it overruled a fundamental 1984 precedent of administrative law found in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[2]
Chevron had required the courts to defer to agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutes as long as the agency’s interpretation was “reasonable.” This was commonly referred to as the “Chevron Doctrine.” Loper Bright held that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and consequently, courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
In his concurrence, Justice Gorsuch put it as follows:
…[T]he Constitution, the APA, and our longstanding precedents set those ground rules [for judging agency action] some time ago. And under them, agencies cannot invoke a judge-made fiction to unsettle our Nation’s promise to individuals that they are entitled to make their arguments about the law’s demands on them in a fair hearing, one in which they stand on equal footing with the government before an independent judge.
The “Chevron” Doctrine had wide relevance across the legal and regulatory landscape. Laws related to the environment, public health, workplace hazards, and drug pricing, to name just a few, were, and now could be differently, impacted. The list could go on and on.
In terms of U.S. immigration law, Loper Bright will no doubt also have a profound impact, both good and bad. Because the decision creates a power shift away from federal agencies and to the federal courts, the result will likely lead to less national uniformity in the application of U.S. immigration law since each federal circuit court of appeals (and even the district courts) will now have its own interpretation of the law. Likely too, the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decisions will also be reviewed and probably overruled more frequently.
But the Loper Bright decision is not all bad. That is, this dramatic change in U.S. administrative law could lead to many U.S. district courts overturning bad decisions denying petitions and other applications for benefits coming out of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and other federal agencies.
Kelli Stump, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) said, “The Loper Bright … case[] had nothing to do with immigration law and policy, but SCOTUS overturning the longstanding Chevron doctrine will have a significant impact on many immigration adjudications.”[3]
Ms. Stump went on to say:
This now means that an agency’s interpretation of the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) doesn’t automatically prevail, which could level the playing field for immigrants and their families and employers. In removal cases, those seeking review of immigration judges’ or Board of Immigration Appeals decisions should now have more opportunity to do so. Employers seeking to obtain a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a noncitizen worker may also benefit.”[4]
Candidly, this decision means that more immigration matters are likely to end up in court. And in today’s litigious environment, that means more “good” immigration agency policies are more likely to be challenged, perhaps successfully, and those policies that restrict immigrants’ access to benefits may be harder to challenge in federal court. Time will tell.
[1] 603 U. S. ____ (2024), Case No. 22-451.
[2] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
[3] AILA President: SCOTUS Overturning “Chevron” Doctrine Will Impact Immigration Cases, June 28, 2024, AILA Doc. No. 24062804.
[4] Id.