US Supreme Court backs ruling on H-1B visa spouses working, defies Save Jobs USA challenge
The rule, introduced during the Obama administration in 2015, grants work privileges to the spouses of individuals holding H-1B visas for highly-skilled jobs
- Oct 16, 2025,
- Updated Oct 16, 2025 5:59 PM IST
In a move that may shape the future of U.S. immigration policy, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to take up a challenge regarding the work authorisation for spouses of H-1B visa holders. The rule, introduced during the Obama administration in 2015, grants work privileges to the spouses of individuals holding H-1B visas for highly-skilled jobs.
The petition, filed by Save Jobs USA, sought to challenge the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the authority to adopt the 2015 rule. The group argued that while DHS has the power to admit H-1B holders and their dependents into the U.S., federal immigration law prohibits these dependents, typically on H-4 visas, from working.
The Supreme Court's decision comes amid ongoing debate about the H-1B program, which has been the subject of numerous policy changes, particularly under the Trump administration. Trump's administration had previously attempted to impose tighter restrictions on the H-1B program, arguing that it displaces American workers. In August, Trump’s administration proposed a $100,000 fee for businesses employing new H-1B workers and signalled plans to impose further changes to the program.
DHS had initially proposed to repeal the 2015 rule during Trump’s first term, but that effort was abandoned after President Joe Biden assumed office. Despite the absence of a final rule to repeal the work authorisation for H-4 holders, the Trump administration’s actions signalled ongoing efforts to limit the program.
The H-1B visa program, created in 1990, allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations such as engineering, medicine, and research. As part of the program, employers must demonstrate that they have attempted to hire American workers and must pay foreign workers the same wages as their American counterparts. While the program offers 65,000 visas annually, it also allocates an additional 20,000 for individuals with advanced degrees.
Last year, more than 25,000 H-4 holders received work authorisation under the 2015 rule, with over 258,000 granted such permissions since its implementation. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling and the subsequent Supreme Court decision come as part of a broader debate on the status of foreign workers and their role in the U.S. economy.
In the case of Save Jobs USA's lawsuit, the group’s claims were ultimately dismissed, with the D.C. Circuit asserting that federal law clearly authorised the rule allowing H-4 visa holders to work. This ruling aligns with a broader trend of judicial deference to agency interpretations of immigration laws, particularly under the Trump administration's directive to enforce stringent immigration regulations.
For now, the 2015 rule stands, with H-4 visa holders continuing to be eligible for work authorisation in the U.S., despite ongoing legal challenges and political debate.
(WIth inputs from Reuters)
In a move that may shape the future of U.S. immigration policy, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to take up a challenge regarding the work authorisation for spouses of H-1B visa holders. The rule, introduced during the Obama administration in 2015, grants work privileges to the spouses of individuals holding H-1B visas for highly-skilled jobs.
The petition, filed by Save Jobs USA, sought to challenge the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the authority to adopt the 2015 rule. The group argued that while DHS has the power to admit H-1B holders and their dependents into the U.S., federal immigration law prohibits these dependents, typically on H-4 visas, from working.
The Supreme Court's decision comes amid ongoing debate about the H-1B program, which has been the subject of numerous policy changes, particularly under the Trump administration. Trump's administration had previously attempted to impose tighter restrictions on the H-1B program, arguing that it displaces American workers. In August, Trump’s administration proposed a $100,000 fee for businesses employing new H-1B workers and signalled plans to impose further changes to the program.
DHS had initially proposed to repeal the 2015 rule during Trump’s first term, but that effort was abandoned after President Joe Biden assumed office. Despite the absence of a final rule to repeal the work authorisation for H-4 holders, the Trump administration’s actions signalled ongoing efforts to limit the program.
The H-1B visa program, created in 1990, allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations such as engineering, medicine, and research. As part of the program, employers must demonstrate that they have attempted to hire American workers and must pay foreign workers the same wages as their American counterparts. While the program offers 65,000 visas annually, it also allocates an additional 20,000 for individuals with advanced degrees.
Last year, more than 25,000 H-4 holders received work authorisation under the 2015 rule, with over 258,000 granted such permissions since its implementation. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling and the subsequent Supreme Court decision come as part of a broader debate on the status of foreign workers and their role in the U.S. economy.
In the case of Save Jobs USA's lawsuit, the group’s claims were ultimately dismissed, with the D.C. Circuit asserting that federal law clearly authorised the rule allowing H-4 visa holders to work. This ruling aligns with a broader trend of judicial deference to agency interpretations of immigration laws, particularly under the Trump administration's directive to enforce stringent immigration regulations.
For now, the 2015 rule stands, with H-4 visa holders continuing to be eligible for work authorisation in the U.S., despite ongoing legal challenges and political debate.
(WIth inputs from Reuters)