In a June 28, 2024 decision, the US Supreme Court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 US __ (2024), which stuck down the longstanding principle of “Chevron deference” to US government agency determinations.

The original 1984 Chevron decision, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), essentially said that when making determinations about the validity of regulations set forth by US government agencies to implement federal statutes, the courts should “defer” to the agency interpretation of those statutes on the assumption that the agency possesses sufficient expertise about the subject matter regulated by that agency.  Where federal legislation is ambiguous, the courts must defer to the regulatory agency’s interpretation as long as that interpretation is “reasonable” and “permissible” – even if the court might have itself interpreted the federal legislation in a different way than the agency.

The Supreme Court held that the Chevron doctrine conflicted with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), in that the APA  – per the Loper decision – requires that courts make legal determinations on agency decisions and so precludes court deference to agency determinations.   The court did try to minimize the impact this will have by stating that agency interpretations may still be considered by the courts even if not held to be determinative, and arguing that prior decisions under Chevron remain good law under “Stare Decisis” principles.

The decision empowers those seeking to fight agency determinations – and as such may not be uniformly positive or negative form an immigration perspective.  Those in removal proceedings fighting negative Board of Immigration Appeals determinations may now have more of a pathway to challenge those determinations – though there is no guarantee that a court will be more lenient.  The same new latitude will be available to immigration restrictionists fighting  pro-immigrant policies in court.

The decision does promise to re-draw the legal landscape, though likely in a far less predictable way.