Document Type
Article
Publication Date
Spring 2019
Abstract
In Slouching Towards Oblivion: Divergent Implementation and Potential Exodus of Chevron Analysis in the Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Immigration Law, Amy L. Moore examines the Supreme Court’s uneven application of Chevron deference in cases interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Mapping the Court’s immigration jurisprudence from 1984 through 2018, the Article documents a striking inconsistency: although the Court has repeatedly interpreted the INA, it has invoked Chevron in only a minority of those cases. Through a doctrinal survey of decisions such as Cardoza-Fonseca, Aguirre-Aguirre, and St. Cyr, the Article identifies recurring rationales for declining deference, including jurisdictional concerns, constitutional avoidance, criminal law overlap, reliance on plain meaning, and the absence of sufficiently authoritative agency action. Moore argues that immigration law—situated at the intersection of administrative, constitutional, and criminal law—provides a revealing lens through which to observe both the strength and fragility of Chevron. Ultimately, the Article contends that the Court’s divergent implementation of deference principles signals a possible retreat from Chevron’s dominance and raises broader questions about judicial authority, agency expertise, and the future of administrative law.
Recommended Citation
Amy L. Moore, Slouching towards Oblivion: Divergent Implementation and Potential Exodus of Chevron Analysis in the Supreme Court's Interpretation of Immigration Law, 87 UMKC L. Rev. 549 (Spring 2019).
