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, enacted by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, states that courts must defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of laws when they may be unclear. As such, the agencies are interpreting the law.

The Constitution gives the judiciary the power to interpret laws, per the groups, not federal agencies. As such, the group claims the Chevron doctrine is not supported by the Constitution. Further, they claim that due process is undermined. The group is challenging the overall validity of the Chevron doctrine.

There are multiple cases currently 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 is limited. They suggest courts should be given the authority to decide what is necessary and appropriate under government regulations.

ILBSG continues to actively monitor ongoing challenges to U.S. policy and how it may affect immigration laws. In this instance, turning over the Chevron doctrine may have an important impact on U.S. immigration policy. As always, if you have any questions about any immigration-related issue, contact us. Our team of attorneys leverage their extensive experience, insight, and knowledge to ensure each client gets the right advice to optimize the odds of a successful outcome.