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
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.
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.
By 7070266136 April 25, 2025
According to documents reviewed by The Washington Post , the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently authorized access for approximately six advisors from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the ECAS system—a highly confidential database that contains detailed information on millions of immigrants, including names, addresses, medical histories, and court testimonies. This system, typically restricted to attorneys and federal investigators, holds records of all interactions—both legal and undocumented—between immigrants and the U.S. government dating back to the 1990s. Among the DOGE advisors granted access are individuals connected to Elon Musk, including employees from his private equity firm. One of them, Marko Elez, has previously been linked to racist social media posts. This access was granted despite a federal judge in Maryland issuing a temporary restraining order in February of this year against the Department of Education and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). In her opinion, the judge stated that the plaintiffs—which include members of several major labor unions—demonstrated that the Department of Education and the OPM "likely violated the Privacy Act by disclosing personal information to DOGE affiliates without consent," as reported by Telemundo40 a few months ago. The access is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and DOGE to collect data from multiple federal agencies—including Medicare, the IRS, the SSA, and HUD—with the aim of ramping up deportations and excluding immigrants from social benefits. Some tactics reportedly include declaring living immigrants as deceased to pressure them into leaving the country. As The Washington Post reported after investigating the matter, "DOGE has frequently sought data originally provided for specific purposes—such as tax filing or housing assistance. The team's methods have alarmed legal and privacy experts, as well as federal employees, who note that the data DOGE is analyzing is typically accessible only to a select group of highly trained personnel." Legal and privacy experts have raised serious concerns over the lack of oversight and the risks posed by granting access to such sensitive data—especially for immigrants who have followed legal immigration procedures. If you are an immigrant or know someone at risk of deportation, contact us for assistance at 719-602-4477.
More Posts →