The Supreme Court’s decision ending the Chevron doctrine has been perceived as a significant boost for immigration proponents

By reversing Chevron, it has chipped away at this previously afforded deference of federal agencies in their interpretation of vague legislation. As many cases at the immigration level often predicate on agency interpretations of legislation, under this new precedent, immigration cases might be heard in a much more neutral fashion. This would allow, so advocates argue, for much more rigorous legal challenges by litigants against adverse immigration rulings, creating a much more level playing field. Others, however, are concerned that it will only continue making the immigration system more unpredictable and placing policy decisions—which have typically been left to expert agencies—into the courts' hands.