On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. – with significant consequences for immigration law. Loper Bright marks a fundamental shift in administrative legal practice, as it overrules Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron decision required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous statutory language within their respective domains, so long as said interpretation was reasonable. The majority in Loper Bright overturned this 40-year-old precedent, holding that courts need not defer to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutory language. The Loper Bright majority has held that Chevron conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, which gives the federal judiciary, not the agencies, the power to decide relevant questions of law. The Loper Bright decision further holds that “courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Importantly, the Loper Bright decision confirms that prior rulings relying on Chevron remain good law and can be cited as precedent. Further, Loper Bright holds that courts should rely upon the deference standard outlined in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), which allows reliance on the federal agency’s interpretation only to the extent that it carries a “power to persuade,” where courts can accord deference dependent upon the thoroughness of its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, and its consistency with earlier agency pronouncements.

Loper Bright will have a profound impact on all areas of U.S. administrative law, including immigration. This decision may lead courts to overturn decisions by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Labor, denying applications and requests for immigration benefits and relief. While this decision increases the likelihood of inconsistency in immigration-related court decisions across the country due to the likely varying interpretation of statutory language by various courts, administration changes will be less likely to cause drastic changes in the application of immigration law. Moving forward, both pro-immigration and anti-immigration plaintiffs will be able to challenge policies, and the courts will have an expanded role in setting U.S. immigration policy, allowing challenges to both restrictive and permissive immigration policies.

The full implications of this ruling will become more apparent as courts adjudicate and interpret immigration statutes and policies.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Nataliya Rymer Nataliya Rymer

Nataliya Rymer focuses her practice on employment-based immigration and compliance. She represents clients in a wide range of employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant matters, including professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty traders and investors, immigrant investors, and persons of extraordinary ability.

Nataliya…

Nataliya Rymer focuses her practice on employment-based immigration and compliance. She represents clients in a wide range of employment-based immigrant and non-immigrant matters, including professionals, managers and executives, artists and entertainers, treaty traders and investors, immigrant investors, and persons of extraordinary ability.

Nataliya also has experience working with employers on I-9 employment verification matters as well as H-1B and LCA compliance-related issues. She counsels employers on due diligence issues, including internal audits and reviews, as well as minimization of exposure and liabilities in government investigations.

In addition, Nataliya is experienced with family-based immigration and immigration-related federal court litigation issues, as well as waivers of inadmissibility.

Photo of Lindsey Steinberg Lindsey Steinberg

Lindsey Steinberg represents large and small companies in complex corporate immigration matters. She focuses her practice on work-related visas, including both immigrant and nonimmigrant applications and petitions, as well as responses to federal agency audits and requests for evidence.

Lindsey’s experience includes preparing…

Lindsey Steinberg represents large and small companies in complex corporate immigration matters. She focuses her practice on work-related visas, including both immigrant and nonimmigrant applications and petitions, as well as responses to federal agency audits and requests for evidence.

Lindsey’s experience includes preparing and filing H-1B, O-1, E-3, and TN visa applications as well as I-140 immigrant petitions as well as a range of USCIS petitions such as EB1 multinational managers, EB1 extraordinary ability, EB2 and EB3 PERM, and marriage-based I-130s. She also responds to H-1B requests for evidence and Department of Labor PERM audits. In addition, Lindsey develops and presents immigration training and other communication strategies to support HR leaders and recruiters so that they can better serve their sponsored employee population.