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

Trump's intention to block judges who fail to protect government decisions.

By 7070266136 • March 28, 2025
Recently, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, has had public disagreements with President Donald Trump. The conflict arose after District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In response, Trump called Judge Boasberg a "radical left-wing lunatic" and demanded his removal. This request was rejected by Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements with judicial decisions and stressed the importance of the appeals process. This situation highlights the tensions between the executive and judicial branches, especially when the impartiality or integrity of the judicial system is questioned. The confrontation has been seen as an institutional clash, with the Chief Justice openly opposing the political pressures exerted by former President Trump, reaffirming the importance of judicial independence. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, "Roberts' recent remarks are not the first time he has rebuked politicians for undermining the judiciary. In 2018, after Trump attacked what he called an 'Obama judge' for ruling against him in a separate immigration case, Roberts issued a statement defending the courts." "We don’t have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said at the time. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who make their best efforts to dispense fair justice to those who appear before them." To this, Trump responded: "Sorry, Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do in fact have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a very different point of view from the people responsible for the safety of our country." As The Wall Street Journal explains in one of its articles: "Threats of impeachment against district judges over preliminary orders issued at the start of litigation are virtually unheard of—and even less so when coming from the president. To remove a judge, the House would have to approve articles of impeachment, and the Senate, after a trial, would need to convict by a two-thirds vote. Although the likelihood of this happening is low, Roberts and other judges have warned that the inflammatory rhetoric of political leaders can lead to the intimidation of judges and even threats to their safety and that of their families." Meanwhile, the court of appeals has not made any decision regarding the removal of Boasberg, and he continues to carry out his duties, such as requesting more information from the government about recent deportation flights. The government continues to evade this request, providing little information while vehemently insisting on Boasberg's removal. If you have any questions about how this could affect your immigration case, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Trump plans to revive family detention in detention centers

By 7070266136 • March 5, 2025
The administration of President Donald Trump has taken measures to strengthen policies on the detention of migrant families, including reopening contracts with private prison companies to operate detention centers for this group. According to reports collected by Telemundo, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is in the process of soliciting proposals from private prison companies to restart detention centers specifically for migrant families. This initiative aims to increase detention capacity and improve living conditions for detained migrant families. As explained by Telemundo in one of its articles, "The governments of former President Barack Obama and the first term of Trump detained parents with their children, but former President Joe Biden ended that practice in early 2021. Under the terms of a 1997 court agreement, ICE is prohibited from holding families with children in regular detention centers, and they must be detained for less than 21 days." Regarding the same issue, The Wall Street Journal commented, “The private prison industry, represented by companies such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, has shown active interest in these contracts. These companies are expanding their capacities and hiring additional staff in anticipation of an increase in demand for detention beds under Trump’s immigration policies. For example, GEO Group plans to increase its bed capacity from 13,500 to more than 31,000, while CoreCivic aims to expand its capacity to 25,000 beds, including the possibility of detaining families and unaccompanied minors.” "Furthermore, it has been reported that the Trump administration is considering using defense funds to allow civilian companies to quickly expand temporary detention centers, such as those housing migrant families. This strategy seeks to increase detention capacity without the need to build new facilities." (Telemundo) In summary, the Trump administration is strengthening migrant family detention policies by reopening contracts with private prison companies, expanding detention capacity, and using defense funds to improve and expand existing facilities. These measures aim to address the increase in the number of migrants and reinforce the government’s immigration policies. The website Immigrants' List aptly states, “This is a prime example of Donald Trump's performative immigration policy, reflecting his desire to create a spectacle rather than address the complexities of our immigration system in a fair and humane manner. Trump is using immigration as a political theater tool to create fear, control, and division. Moreover, Trump's family detention policy is designed to fill the pockets of private prisons, contributing to the expansion of the industrial prison complex, all at the expense of humanity and justice. By intensifying detention and deportation efforts, the Trump administration contributed to the growing reliance on private contractors to manage immigrant detention centers. This has been a key way in which for-profit prison companies like CoreCivic have benefited from the incarceration of immigrant families." As for us, PIKES PEAK IMMIGRATION, we remain committed to fighting for immigrants' rights and helping families stay united. Call us if you need advice on immigration matters.

Learn about the Limitations that ICE has for entering private areas in hospitals

February 19, 2025
As part of the measures taken by the administration of Donald Trump, and as explained in an article published on WLRN.COM, the 2011 policy limiting the actions of immigration agents in "sensitive areas," such as churches, hospitals, and schools, was revoked. This decision was part of Trump’s campaign promises to tighten policies against undocumented immigrants. However, despite the policy change, immigration authorities can only access public areas of hospitals without a court order, while entry into private areas requires a warrant. WLRN.COM mentions in its article that hospitals in South Florida, such as those operated by HCA Healthcare and Jackson Health System, continue to comply with federal regulations that require emergency medical care to be provided to all individuals, regardless of their immigration status. "We provide care to all patients who come to our facilities in accordance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)," said a spokesperson for HCA Healthcare's East Florida division, which operates 14 hospitals in South Florida. EMTALA is a federal regulation that mandates hospitals to provide emergency medical services to anyone, regardless of their ability to pay, including undocumented immigrants. WLRN.COM recently interviewed Paul Chavez, director of litigation for Americans for Immigrant Justice, who stated, "Often, ICE shows up at locations with a notice stating that a search warrant is required. This does not give them any authority to search what would otherwise be private areas. Therefore, the designated person must be very careful to ensure that what they see is a real search warrant," he said. This is a brief overview of the daily challenges immigrants and the institutions that serve them face to ensure their rights are not denied. In contrast, while immigrant advocates carefully study each situation to ensure due process, efforts and intentions to make the path increasingly difficult for those living in the country illegally persist. In the state of Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis and legislators are working hard to implement new projects and enforce those already in place. Among these projects are proposals such as making it a state crime to enter Florida without legal authorization. Another measure supported by DeSantis would require the preventive detention of individuals who are in the country without legal authorization and are accused of serious crimes. New powers would allow Florida police to interrogate and arrest suspected undocumented immigrants. Similarly, the proposed bill would increase criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes and establish the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. The measure would also repeal a state law that allows Florida students who lack legal immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. As evident, defending immigrants, especially those who are undocumented, has become an even greater challenge since Trump took office. However, at PIKES PEAK IMMIGRATION , we continue working diligently to keep families united.
More Posts →
Share by: