| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
| | Khano v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 999 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir. 1993) | | Khano v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 999 F.2d 1203 (7th Cir. 1993) |
| | | | |
| − | Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., v. Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. 183 (1991) | + | Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., v. Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, 502 U.S. 183 (1991) (the Supreme Court declaring that a principal purpose of the immigration system is to protect American workers) |
| | | | |
| | Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Meese, 891 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1989) | | Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Meese, 891 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir. 1989) |
| Line 87: |
Line 87: |
| | Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 50 F.4th 164 (D.C. Cir. 2022) | | Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 50 F.4th 164 (D.C. Cir. 2022) |
| | | | |
| − | Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 58 F.4th 506 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, which is notable for the compelling dissent by Judge Rao; Judge Henderson incorporated her panel dissent into this court decision) | + | Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 58 F.4th 506 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, which is notable for the compelling dissent by Judge Rao; Judge Henderson incorporated her panel dissent into this court decision; Judge Rao points out that DHS has undermined congressional protection for American workers by regulations that allow employment on any nonimmigrant visa) |
| | | | |
| | ''[[West Virginia v. EPA]]'', 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2605 (2022) (establishing [[major questions doctrine]], and emphasizing that the Court “‘expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.’”)(quoting ''Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Env’t Prot. Agency'', 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). | | ''[[West Virginia v. EPA]]'', 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2605 (2022) (establishing [[major questions doctrine]], and emphasizing that the Court “‘expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.’”)(quoting ''Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Env’t Prot. Agency'', 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014)). |