Judicial deference refers to the practice of federal courts limiting their independent review of decisions made by executive branch agencies, administrative tribunals, and lower courts. Deference doctrines reduce the scope of appellate oversight: instead of asking "is this decision correct?", a deferential court asks "is this decision reasonable?" or "is this finding clearly wrong?" The most famous deference doctrine — Chevron deference — required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, but the Supreme Court eliminated it in 2024's Loper Bright decision. Deference in immigration adjudication, as addressed in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (2026), operates on a different doctrinal track and has survived Loper Bright. The policy argument for deference is that specialized agencies have expertise courts lack; the argument against is that deference insulates executive power from judicial accountability.