Supreme Court rejects challenge to Spousal Visa Program.

The Supreme Court Upholds Obama-Era Immigration‌ Program for H-1B Visa Holders’ Spouses

The Supreme Court has rejected a legal ‌challenge to an immigration program initiated during the Obama administration. ‌This program grants employment authorization ‌to the spouses⁣ of‍ H-1B visa ⁣holders, allowing U.S. employers to hire foreign workers ⁣in​ specialized occupations.

The H-1B visa is reserved for⁢ jobs that ​require specialized knowledge and⁢ a bachelor’s​ degree or equivalent⁢ work experience.⁣ The​ U.S. Department of Labor ⁢defines these occupations as specialty occupations.

The Supreme Court’s decision upholds a previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed a lawsuit filed by ‍Save Jobs USA Inc., a group representing American-born tech workers in California.

Related Stories

• Tech Layoffs ⁢Send H-1B Visa Holders Scrambling ‍for New⁤ Jobs

  Published on 11/22/2022

• Asylum‍ Applications Skyrocketing‍ at Canadian Airports Since Feds Reduced Visitor Visa Requirements

  Published on 10/26/2023

Save Jobs USA Inc. sought to revoke​ employment authorizations for 90,000 H-4 visa holders,​ who ​are spouses ⁢and dependent children of temporary workers with H-1B visas.

The Supreme Court’s decision, made on October 30, was an unsigned order ⁤in Save Jobs USA Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security. The court did not⁢ provide any reasons for its decision, and no justices dissented. It is worth noting that Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in ‍the consideration or decision of this petition.

The Immigration Law Reform Institute (IRLI),⁣ representing Save Jobs, argued in its petition that the law ⁤governing the Department of Homeland Security’s ability⁢ to issue permits for employment of H-4 visa holders was unclear.

The petition questioned whether the absence ‌of employment mention in the H-4 visa’s terms granted the Department of Homeland Security the discretion to permit employment.

This issue of agency authority in ⁤the absence of ⁢clear ‌congressional direction is already before ‍the Supreme Court in two fishing company cases. These cases will be heard in January ‍2024‌ and deal⁢ with⁢ a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitoring ⁢of ​their ⁤catch. The companies argue that this rule represents bureaucratic overreach.

The fishing ⁤company cases ⁣will also​ address the Chevron⁢ deference doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in 1984. This doctrine states⁤ that an executive ‌agency’s ‍interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference unless Congress ⁤has stated otherwise.

Conservatives and Republican policymakers ‍have criticized the Chevron doctrine,⁣ arguing that it grants unelected regulators excessive power. The authority of regulatory agencies has faced increased scrutiny ⁤as the conservative majority on ‌the Supreme Court has grown.

IRLI⁣ contended in its petition⁣ that even if the​ Chevron doctrine were reversed, it would not fully resolve the H-1B visa ⁣issue.

The U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, urged the Supreme Court to deny the petition in a brief filed ‌on September 20. ⁢She argued that ‍the Save Jobs group lacked legal standing to challenge the rule and that the Department of Homeland ‍Security had the authority to authorize work visas for H-1B⁣ visa holders’ spouses.

Christopher Hajec, IRLI’s director of litigation,⁢ expressed⁤ disappointment‍ in the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating that it​ favored capital over American jobs. He‍ vowed to continue fighting against these programs and make the immigration system accountable to the ⁤people.

The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment but had not received a reply ⁢as of press time.

What was the argument made by Save Jobs USA ​Inc. regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act ‍and work permits for H-4 visa holders, and what was the⁤ Supreme Court’s decision?

Hether the Immigration and​ Nationality Act (INA) allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to grant work permits to H-4 visa holders. Save Jobs USA Inc. argued that ​the INA only authorizes employment authorization for certain⁣ categories of immigrants, and that ​H-4 visa holders do not fall into these‍ categories.

However, the Supreme‍ Court sided with the government, allowing the DHS ​to continue issuing work permits to H-4 visa holders. This decision is a victory⁣ for the Obama-era immigration‌ program, as it ensures that spouses of H-1B visa holders can ‌continue to work legally in the United States.

The H-4 visa is issued‍ to the spouses and dependent children of H-1B visa holders, who are temporary workers in specialized occupations. These spouses are often highly educated individuals ‍who possess unique skills and qualifications. Granting them employment authorization allows them to contribute to the U.S. economy and provides opportunities for them to advance their careers.

By upholding the program,⁤ the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of attracting and retaining highly skilled workers from around the world. The H-1B visa program already plays a crucial role in filling talent ‍gaps in industries such ​as technology, ⁢engineering, and healthcare. Allowing H-4 visa holders to work further enhances the economic benefits of this visa category.

The Supreme Court’s decision also upholds the ⁢principle of fairness and equality. Denying ⁣employment authorization to H-4 visa holders would have created an unfair situation where these individuals, who are legally present in the United States, would ‍be barred ⁤from working and⁢ contributing to society. Allowing them‍ to work ensures that their skills and ⁣potential are not wasted and promotes the integration of immigrant families into American society.

It is worth noting that this decision was ‌made without the participation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, ‍who did ‍not take part in the consideration or decision of ​this case. Although no reasons ⁤were provided for the decision, the absence of any dissenting opinions indicates a consensus within the Court on this⁣ matter.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Obama-era immigration program for H-1B‌ visa holders’ spouses is ⁣a ‍positive development.‌ It reaffirms the value of attracting and retaining highly skilled⁤ workers, promotes fairness and equality, and contributes to the⁤ continued growth and prosperity of the United States.