The repercussions in immigration cases following the fall of the Chevron Doctrine

July 5, 2024
The word justice is on the front of a building

Firstly, for context, as explained by the Cornell Law School website, «The ‘Chevron deference’ refers to the doctrine of judicial deference granted to administrative action. It was coined after a landmark case, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). In Chevron, the Supreme Court established a legal test for when courts should defer to the agency’s response or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate when the agency’s response was not unreasonable, provided that Congress had not directly addressed the specific issue in question.»

Recently, the latest news on this matter is that «the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned the long-standing ‘Chevron’ doctrine, meaning that federal courts can no longer routinely defer to federal agency decisions and regulations.»

Regarding the issue of immigration, it is important to cite recent statements from Kelli Stump, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

«The Loper Bright and Relentless cases had nothing to do with immigration law and policy, but the Supreme Court’s overturning of the longstanding Chevron doctrine will have a significant impact on many immigration decisions. This means that now the agency’s interpretation of the INA does not automatically prevail, which could level the playing field for immigrants, their families, and employers. In deportation cases, those seeking review of decisions from immigration judges or the Board of Immigration Appeals should now have more opportunities to do so. Employers seeking a favorable interpretation of a statute granting H-1B or L visa classification to a non-citizen worker may also benefit. We also note potential negative consequences, as the decision has severely limited the executive branch’s power to modernize our immigration system through policy updates or regulations. The valuable immigration benefits created by regulations could be threatened if they are not clearly based on statutory language. With this ruling, the Supreme Court is returning the rule-making process to Congress.»

In summary, the change could significantly impact how immigration cases are decided. For example:

  • Immigration Benefits : Programs like DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) that rely on agency discretion might face more challenges.
  • Removal Cases : Those seeking to avoid deportation might find it easier to challenge decisions if courts no longer defer to the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals).
  • Employer Visas : Companies sponsoring workers under H-1B or L visas might see more legal hurdles if agency decisions are more frequently contested.

Overturning Chevron could lead to more judicial involvement in interpreting immigration laws, less predictability, and potentially more legal challenges. It would shift the balance of power from agencies to courts, changing how immigration policies are applied and interpreted.   

At Pikes Peak Immigration , we will closely monitor this and all changes that impact immigration cases, both positively and negatively.

If you have any questions or need to start an immigration process, please contact us at 719-602-4477.

 

The repercussions in immigration cases following the fall of the Chevron Doctrine

Policy Change at the Department of Justice: Temporary Immigration Judges No Longer Required to Have Prior Immigration Law Experience

By 7070266136 • September 10, 2025
In a significant shift in the Trump administration’s immigration policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that temporary immigration judges will no longer be required to have experience in immigration law. This new rule, published on August 28 in the Federal Register, comes in response to the growing backlog in immigration courts, which now exceeds 3.7 million pending cases. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts, will now allow the selection of temporary judges without prior experience in immigration law, provided they receive approval from the Attorney General. According to the DOJ, this change aims to address the severe delay in immigration cases by expanding the pool of potential candidates for the courts. Previously, temporary judges were required to be former immigration judges, administrative law judges, or attorneys with at least ten years of experience in immigration law. Among the justifications cited in the announcement, it states that: "Experience in immigration law is not always a reliable indicator of success as an immigration judge, and the EOIR has hired individuals from other federal agencies and departments without prior immigration experience who have been successful and have become role models," the notice reads. The announcement comes after more than 100 immigration judges were dismissed or reassigned in early 2025, significantly reducing the number of permanent judges. While the Department of Justice maintains that this measure is intended to address the mounting workload, critics and immigrant advocates argue that the policy appears politically motivated, with the goal of accelerating deportation proceedings. Increase in Temporary Judges and Involvement of Military Attorneys In addition to this regulatory change, the Department of Defense (DOD) has approved the deployment of up to 600 military attorneys to serve as temporary immigration judges, effectively doubling the number of immigration judges under the DOJ. These temporary judges have renewable six-month terms and are intended to support—but not replace—permanent judges. However, this shift has raised concerns about the politicization of immigration courts. Temporary judges, including military attorneys, could be more vulnerable to political pressure, given that their appointments depend on continued approval from the administration. This type of structure could compromise the impartiality of the courts and increase perceptions that immigration decisions are more politically driven than based on legal facts. Concerns About Legality and Due Process The recent changes have also drawn legal scrutiny. The assignment of military attorneys to judicial roles may violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the armed forces in enforcing civilian law. Additionally, some human rights experts worry that temporary judges lacking adequate immigration law experience may not possess the necessary knowledge to ensure due process for migrants. Immigrant advocates warn that this trend could further politicize immigration courts and undermine the rights of immigrants, who are already navigating an extremely overburdened judicial system. As immigration courts increasingly rely on military attorneys and other temporary judges, it becomes even more critical for Congress to enhance oversight of these processes to ensure judicial independence is upheld. Reactions and Future Outlook This policy change has drawn criticism not only from immigrant advocacy groups but also from some of the dismissed immigration judges, who claim the recent decisions were politically motivated and, in some cases, rooted in gender discrimination. The Department of Justice, for its part, insists that the reform is a necessary response to the growing backlog of immigration cases and that it will enable a more efficient immigration justice system. As this new policy takes effect, it is expected that new legal challenges will emerge regarding its legality, particularly concerning the role of military attorneys in immigration courts. Nonetheless, the debate over court independence and access to fair legal proceedings will remain a central issue in the ongoing reform of the U.S. immigration system.

Arrests of undocumented immigrants outside immigration courts have increased.

By 7070266136 • May 29, 2025
According to sources such as Newbreak, several specific cases have emerged where a judge dismisses the case during the hearing, but ICE officers are waiting outside the courthouse to detain the individual as they leave. Newbreak.com recently reported that at least eight arrests of this kind have taken place in Memphis, with similar cases occurring in other parts of the country as well. One of the most recent known cases involved a 20-year-old Venezuelan student who was arrested by ICE officers after leaving a courtroom in New York. The young man, named Dylan, was in the process of applying for asylum. He attended the hearing with his mother, without a lawyer, believing it was a routine appearance that would have no consequences. In another instance, four asylum seekers were arrested by ICE on May 27, 2025, at the San Francisco Immigration Court while attending hearings to present their asylum applications. According to an article published by La Nación, a New York judge reported that ICE agents have been arresting undocumented immigrants inside state courthouses, despite existing laws that prohibit such practices. These arrests have raised serious concerns among civil rights advocates and immigrant communities, particularly in light of the stricter immigration policies implemented since Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025. Importantly, in most of these cases, the individuals arrested attended their hearings without legal representation. This likely contributes to the effectiveness of these arrests, as ICE may be taking advantage of the detainees’ lack of legal knowledge. While having an attorney present does not guarantee protection from arrest, it is considered a significant advantage. Legal representation can help build a stronger case and present more compelling legal arguments to prevent arbitrary detention. At Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to fight for the rights of our immigrant communities. If you need legal guidance, don’t hesitate to contact us at 719-602-4477.

Justice Department Fired Attorney Who Opposed the Erroneous Deportation of an Immigrant

By 7070266136 • May 9, 2025
On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice fired immigration attorney Erez Reuveni following his handling of the case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Reuveni had acknowledged during a court hearing that the deportation was an "administrative error" and expressed frustration over the government's failure to provide clear answers on how to reverse the situation. According to CNN, “Reuveni was initially placed on administrative leave days after expressing frustration over the government's inability to provide answers to a judge’s questions in the case. In court, he said of the government’s position: ‘Our only arguments are jurisdictional... He should not have been sent to El Salvador.’” His dismissal was interpreted as a consequence of failing to fully support the administration’s official position. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the decision, stating that lawyers must “zealously” advocate for the administration’s policies or face consequences. Presidential advisor Stephen Miller downplayed the error, blaming it on a poorly worded line written by the attorney. However, Reuveni’s case is not an isolated incident. According to NBC Boston, “The U.S. Department of Justice has fired more than two dozen employees, most of whom worked in immigration courts... An immigration judge assigned to Massachusetts, who was fired on Friday, and the union representing immigration judges nationwide are speaking out about the dismissals, which come as President Donald Trump moves swiftly to reduce the federal workforce.” As for Kilmar Abrego, “a federal judge ordered his return to the U.S., but the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the order. The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, refused to facilitate his return, labeling him a ‘terrorist’ and claiming he would not ‘traffic a terrorist back into the U.S.,’” El Salvador News recently reported. Despite intimidation and increasingly harsh immigration policies, at Pikes Peak Immigration, we continue to defend immigrants and pursue every solution to keep families together.
More Posts →