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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
