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
Actifs liés
Dernières actualités
Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.
Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.
Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.
