Judicial Deference in Immigration Cases: A Qualitative Inquiry into How Judicial Decision Making Shapes Immigration Policy

In the United States, the inherent right of a sovereign nation to regulate immigration and naturalization has been a privilege long recognized. The judicially established plenary power doctrine affirmed that right in 1889, only to be forgotten to history through shifting judicial focus. This study analyzed the connection between the political branch’s constitutional and statutory authority on immigration regulation and the influence of the federal judiciary on that power by reviewing immigration law, executive action, and judicial decisions. Increased judicial review into immigration-related matters has affected immigration policy. Soliciting firsthand insight from 17 federal judges provided unparalleled insight when investigating the basis for that intervention. With a framework guided by the theories of judicial behavior, this study demonstrated the importance of understanding how judicial behavior and judicial philosophy influence decision making when faced with issues relating to executive or legislative action on immigration. The combination of semistructured interviews and a case study confirmed a variety of explanatory variables that contribute to judicial decision making. The results produced two themes with five respective subthemes that successfully encapsulated what factors were prevalent in participants’ judicial process, culminating with the judicial thought equation (jd = jb + jp). Findings revealed professional experience prior to taking the bench, outside influences, and discretion were the main contributors to decision making in immigration-related cases. Future studies should include continued qualitative discussions with individual judges who have presided over cases with immigration policy implications.