Abstract
Although Congress bears primary responsibility for the convoluted nature of America’s immigration laws, immigration law has been rendered even more incoherent through inconsistent interpretation. During the reign of Chevron deference, the federal courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals and various Attorneys General pushed in different directions, with textualist, libertarian, and restrictionist impulses holding sway on different major interpretive questions. The result is that immigration law is more internally incoherent and more divorced from popular opinion than is necessitated by the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The end of Chevron deference offers some potential for the federal courts to bring a more consistent interpretive approach to immigration law, but it is by no means certain that the courts will take this opportunity.
Recommended Citation
Michael Kagan,
Misinterpreting Immigration Law,
56
N.M. L. Rev.
237
(2026).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol56/iss2/2
