A three-judge panel-based section on Friday upheld a federal law that allows spouses of H-1B visa holders to operate in the country, contending that this particular case had no bearing given a new Supreme Court ruling restricting the powers.
The H-1B card program is designed for very skilled overseas professionals.
The US Department of Homeland Security has broad authority to regulate the situations under which card holders are admitted into the country, according to a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The US tech sector thoroughly employs individuals who require specialized training or education as part of their employment. Popular business institutions and tech giants, such as Google ( a company of Alphabet ), Amazon.com, and Microsoft, that had filed papers with a lower court backing the 2015 law.
According to these businesses, working for the spouses of H-1B visa holders in the United States would encourage these skilled workers to obtain permanent residency through green cards, in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS).
This would also help the businesses that employ them retain very qualified workers.
The District of Columbia Circuit upheld a decision made by a federal prosecutor in Washington, dismissing a complaint filed in 2015 by Save Jobs USA, the company, which represents past Southern California Edison workers, claimed that they were replaced by immigrant workers.
The petition, which challenged the legality of the law, resembled a 2022 DC Circuit decision, according to the court. According to the decision, the judge in that case rejected a problem to a different law that allows foreign students to work in the United States after finishing their education.
Due to the decision made by the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in June, which limited the authority of national authorities, Save Jobs USA had argued that the 2022 decision was incorrect and unsuitable to their legal actions.
The Supreme Court’s decision ended the cherished” Chevron deference,” a concept that mandated that federal agencies give reasonable views of ambiguous laws.
However, the DC Circuit determined that, despite its 2022 choice mentioning Chevron as a “fallback explanation,” the court had freely determined that federal law had evidently authorized the challenged rule, and that the same rule was also applicable to the regulation in question in Friday’s decision.
( With inputs from agencies )
