US Supreme Court Upholds H-4 Work Permits, Ending Decade-Long Battle Over Immigrant Spouses' Jobs

On October 14, 2025, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to work authorization for spouses of temporary foreign workers. Save Jobs USA, representing American-born IT workers, sought to overturn an Obama-era rule granting employment to H-4 visa holders, who are dependents of H-1B workers.

Save Jobs USA argued that the Court should resolve whether DHS can authorize noncitizen employment or if Congress alone can do so. The government said Save Jobs USA lacked standing and that the case lacked a circuit split or national importance.

The denial follows recent Trump-era moves targeting H-1B. Justice Kavanaugh did not participate. Save Jobs USA is represented by the Immigration Reform Law Institute. DHS is represented by the Justice Department.

Summary of the D.C. Circuit's "Original Judgment" (Save Jobs USA v. DHS, No. 16-5287, November 8, 2019)

The case centers on a 2015 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule allowing certain H-4 visa holders—dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders—to apply for employment authorization documents (EADs) if their spouses meet specific criteria (e.g., approved I-140 petitions or extended H-1B status). Save Jobs USA, a group of American technology workers, challenged the rule, alleging it exceeded DHS's authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by permitting work for non-immigrants not explicitly authorized by Congress.

First, the District Court ruled that Save Jobs USA lacked Article III standing, finding no concrete injury to U.S. workers from the rule. On November 8, 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the case on the ground that Save Jobs USA did have standing, based on evidence of competitive injury. The evidence consisted of affidavits from members showing lost job opportunities due to H-4 EAD holder’s competing for roles in tech fields. The court emphasized that such economic harm from immigration-related employment rules constitutes a cognizable injury under precedents like Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp (1970). It remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits, without reaching DHS's statutory authority at that stage. This decision revived the challenge after years of district court delays.

Subsequent Developments Leading to the 2024 D.C. Circuit Ruling

On remand to the U.S. District Court for the D.C., Judge Christopher Cooper granted summary judgment for DHS on March 28, 2023, upholding the H-4 rule. The district court relied on the D.C. Circuit's 2022 precedent in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS ("Washtech"), which interpreted INA Sections 1184(a)(1) and 1182(a)(5)(A) as granting DHS broad discretion to set "time, terms, and conditions" of non-immigrant stays—including limited work authorization. It rejected Save Jobs USA's major questions doctrine argument, noting Washtech postdated West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and thus incorporated modern administrative law limits.

Save Jobs USA appealed, and on August 2, 2024, the D.C. Circuit (in No. 23-5089) affirmed Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. A per curiam opinion is an appellate court decision issued in the court’s name rather than attributed to a specific judge. It typically denotes a short, unsigned opinion reflecting the court’s collective judgment, often used for straightforward cases, summary dispositions, or to signal institutional consensus. It does not necessarily mean the decision was unanimous unless stated.  The panel (Judges Millett, Walker, and Childs) ruled that Washtech bindingly resolved the statutory question, as the H-4 rule was analogous to the upheld STEM OPT extensions for F-1 students. Save Jobs USA had failed to distinguish the cases meaningfully, and the court declined to revisit Washtech under stare decisis (Latin for “stand by things decided”). It also dismissed major questions raised as foreclosed by the Washtech precedent.

Denial of Certiorari by the Supreme Court

Save Jobs USA filed a petition for certiorari before judgment directly from the district court (No. 23-422, October 2023), which the Supreme Court denied on October 30, 2023. Justice Kavanaugh recused himself because he had previously participated in the case while a judge on the D.C. Circuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3), a judge must disqualify himself/herself from a proceeding in which s/he served in governmental employment and “participated as counsel, adviser or material witness” or “expressed an opinion concerning the merits.” Justice Kavanaugh was on the D.C. Circuit panel earlier in the Save Jobs USA litigation and so he did not take part in the certiorari decision.

After the D.C. Circuit's August 2024 affirmance, Save Jobs USA petitioned for full Supreme Court review (No. 24-923, filed August 2024), urging the Court to address whether DHS can grant work authorization to non-immigrants absent explicit congressional approval, and to overturn the D.C. Circuit's expansive reading of INA authority.

As briefly mentioned above, on October 14, 2025, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment or dissents noted, leaving the D.C. Circuit's rulings intact. The Trump administration (via the Solicitor General) had urged denial, arguing the case lacked national importance and that DHS's authority was settled. The denial by the US Supreme Court ends nearly a decade of litigation, preserving the H-4 EAD program (which has authorized over 258,000 spouses since 2015). Critics, including Save Jobs USA, argue it allows executive overreach harming U.S. workers, but the decision aligns with precedents affirming DHS's regulatory flexibility in non-immigrant programs.