The U.S. federal government again urged the Supreme Court to maintain the Chevron doctrine, allowing judges to defer to executive branch agency interpretations in rulemaking when laws are ambiguous.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two different matters that both ask the same legal question: Should the 1984 Supreme Court decision in the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, be overturned? In that finding, the Court found that reasonable interpretations of federal agency reviews are valid for rulemaking. Federal agencies that review laws where there may be multiple interpretations, are given the authority to set legal precedent which informs future legal actions and outcomes. The federal government believes the Chevron doctrine plays an important role in interpreting unclear laws.
Two cases, including Relentless v. Commerce, question the 1984 Chevron decision’s validity. The government argues that Chevron is crucial when statutory provisions have multiple reasonable readings, providing a framework for policy judgments vested in agencies.
In Relentless, fishing companies challenge a National Marine Fisheries Service rule, with oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 17. The government believes that overturning Chevron would disrupt reliance on agency rules and orders, potentially leading to inconsistent results.
As always, ILBSG actively monitors ongoing legal challenges that may affect U.S. immigration to ensure our clients get the right advice based on the latest news. Our team of experienced and professional attorneys work directly with their clients to maximize their odds of a successful outcome. Contact us if you have questions about any U.S. immigration issue.
