US court upholds rule granting work permits to visa holders' spouses
By Daniel Wiessner
Aug 2 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected a challenge to a federal rule implemented under former President Barack Obama that lets spouses of people with H-1B visas, which go to highly educated foreign professionals, to work in the United States, saying a recent Supreme Court ruling curtailing the powers of federal agencies had no impact on the case.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that federal immigration law gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security broad powers to regulate the conditions of admission into the United States for visa holders.
H-1B visas, granted to workers in occupations that require special education or training, are widely used in the U.S. tech industry. Major business groups and tech companies including Alphabet's Google GOOGL.O, Amazon.com AMZN.O and Microsoft MSFT.O had filed briefs with a lower court backing the 2015 rule.
Echoing DHS, the companies had argued that allowing the spouses of visa holders to work in the United States would encourage H-1B workers to seek green cards allowing them to stay permanently, in turn making it easier for companies to retain highly skilled employees.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed a ruling by a Washington-based federal judge dismissing a 2015 lawsuit by Save Jobs USA, which represents former employees of utility Southern California Edison who have said they were displaced by immigrant workers.
The lawsuit challenging the legality of the rule was comparable to a 2022 case in which the D.C. Circuit rejected a challenge to a separate regulation allowing foreign students to remain in the United States and work after graduating, according to Friday's ruling.
Save Jobs USA had argued that the 2022 decision was wrong and that it did not apply to the group's lawsuit because it was issued before the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that curbed the powers of federal agencies.
The Supreme Court decision eliminated the longstanding requirement, called "Chevron deference," that courts defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of laws that they enforce if they are ambiguous.
But the D.C. Circuit on Friday ruled that while its 2022 decision cited Chevron as a "fallback argument," the court had separately found that federal law clearly authorized the challenged rule in that case, and said that was also true of the regulation at issue in Friday's decision.
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Will Dunham
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
