Once again, the U.S. federal government is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Chevron doctrine, allowing judges to defer to executive branch agency interpretations in rulemaking when faced with unclear laws.

The Supreme Court agreed to review two separate cases that share a common legal question: Should the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council be overturned? In that precedent-setting case, the Court established that reasonable interpretations by federal agencies in rulemaking are valid, especially in cases where laws have multiple possible interpretations. This grants federal agencies the authority to establish legal precedents that inform future legal actions and outcomes. The federal government contends that the Chevron doctrine is vital in interpreting unclear laws.

Two cases, including Relentless v. Commerce, challenge the validity of the 1984 Chevron decision. The government argues that Chevron is essential when statutory provisions have multiple reasonable readings, providing a framework for policy judgments vested in agencies.

In the case of Relentless, fishing companies are contesting a National Marine Fisheries Service rule, and oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 17. The government asserts that overturning Chevron would disrupt reliance on agency rules and orders, potentially leading to inconsistent results.

As always, we actively monitor ongoing legal challenges that could impact U.S. immigration, ensuring our clients get advice based on the latest developments. Our team of experienced and professional attorneys works directly with clients to support them, every step of the way.