The U.S. Supreme Court received briefs from a group of six organizations and former state supreme court judges urging them to overturn the Chevron doctrine. The doctrine, created by the Supreme Court in the 1984 landmark case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, established what is known as “Chevron deference.” This is a legal principle that demands that courts must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the law as long as it is reasonable. Basically, the Chevron case determined that where Congress has delegated authority to an administrative agency if the enabling statute is ambiguous or silent on a specific issue, the administrative agency has the power to interpret the statute. If challenged, the interpretation must be upheld as long as it is based on a permissible construction of the statute. As a result of the Chevron case, administrative agencies are empowered to interpret the law, while the courts are limited in their ability to meaningfully review administrative action.

Now, the group of six organizations and former judges are urging the Supreme Court to overturn Chevron and restore the ability to interpret the law to the courts. They argue that the U.S. Constitution gives the judiciary alone the power to interpret laws, not the federal administrative agencies. As such, the group claims the Chevron doctrine is unconstitutional. Further, they claim that due process is undermined by this doctrine, as judicial review is now greatly limited in cases involving administrative action. In short, the group is challenging the overall validity of the Chevron doctrine.

They are not alone. Currently, there are multiple cases challenging the doctrine. Arguments are scheduled for January for one case, Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce. This challenge, filed by fishing companies, asks for the reversal of a National Marine Fisheries Service rule that requires fishers to pay a portion of the cost of federal compliance monitors. These monitors are required by the law. A similar case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, submits the same challenge.

In a brief submitted by the group, they state Chevron strips the judiciary of its typical authority to interpret law. In addition, individuals’ rights to challenge the government in court are limited. They suggest courts should be given the authority to decide what is necessary and appropriate under a federal statute, not government agencies.

ILBSG continues to actively monitor ongoing challenges to U.S. policy and how it may affect immigration law. We know firsthand what an impact the Chevron doctrine has had in this area, where the federal immigration agencies act with unbridled discretion and judicial review is often unavailable. Were the Chevron deference to be eliminated, it would have an undeniably positive impact on U.S. immigration policy. This would restore access to judicial review, increase administrative integrity, and help eliminate arbitrary and inconsistent adjudication in immigration cases. If you have questions about any immigration-related issue, contact us.

Chevron Deference