Visa cases

Visa cases - as in immigration visas -- including the following 46 precedents, mostly from the U.S. Supreme Court, but 5 from the D.C. Circuit, 5 from the Third Circuit, 2 from the Fifth Circuit, and roughly 1 from most of the other Circuits.

Akbarin v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 669 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1982) (holding in favor of a non-immigrant student in the U.S. on a visa, and reversing a deportation order against him for reconsideration of his argument of estoppel based on what he was told by immigration officials)

Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) (a 6-3 per curiam decision against the moratorium on eviction imposed by the CDC without congressional authorization: "the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.")

Birdsong v. Holder, 641 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming deportation by denying further review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision concerning a woman who was admitted into the United States in December 2001 under a "K-1" nonimmigrant visa, and sought to remain based on marrying a U.S. citizen but was found not to have followed all of the applicable procedures to remain under that status)

Buffington v. McDonough, 143 S. Ct. 14 (2022)

Chevron, U.S.A. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)

City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261 (2016)

Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (1978)

Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000)

Gazeli v. Session, 856 F.3d 1101 (6th Cir. 2017)

Graham v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 998 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1993)

Jie Fang v. Dir. U.S. Immigr.& Customs Enf’t, 935 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2019)

Xu Feng v. Univ. of Del., 833 F. App’x 970 (3d Cir. 2021)

J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)

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) (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 Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 761 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 616 F. Supp. 1387 (N.D. Cal. 1985)

Lok v. Immigr.& Naturalization Serv., 681 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1982)

La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 476 U.S. 355 (1986)

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989)

Morel v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 90 F.3d 833 (3d Cir. 1996)

Moreno v. Univ. of Md., 645 F.2d 217 (4th Cir. 1981)

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Labor, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022)

Olaniyan v. Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 796 F.2d 373 (10th Cir. 1986)

Rogers v. Larson, 563 F.2d 617 (3d Cir. 1977)

Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021)

Save Jobs USA v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 15-cv-0615 (TSC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53045 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2023) (upholding, under the most recent Wash Tech decision, an expansive new regulation that improperly authorizes unrestricted employment under the guise of H-4 visas)

Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015) (2-1, affirming a preliminary injunction against an implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program ("DAPA") by the Obama Administration)

Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982)

Touray v. United States AG, 546 F. App’x 907 (11th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547 (2016)

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) (precursor to Court embrace of major questions doctrine: Congress must "speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance")

United States v. Igbatayo, 764 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1985) (the federal statutory requirements for student visas must apply for the foreigner’s entire stay in the U.S.)

Von Kennel Gaudin v. Remis, 379 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2004)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 74 F. Supp. 3d 247 (D.D.C. 2014)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 156 F. Supp. 3d 123 (D.D.C. 2015)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 650 Fed. Appx. 13 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec, 249 F. Supp. 3d 524 (D.D.C. 2017)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 892 F.3d 332 (D.C. Cir. 2018)

Wash. All. Tech Workers v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland Sec., 518 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D.D.C 2021)

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; 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)).

Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001) (prohibiting regulators and courts from finding elephants in mouseholes in statutes, pursuant to the major questions doctrine).