Will the Judgment in the IEEPA Case Doom Trump’s Plan to Impose a $100,000 Fee on H-1B Skilled Workers?
Who benefits from this decision?
On March 9, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit (Wilkins, Katsas, and Childs) will hear Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, in which the Chamber of Commerce challenges the Trump administration’s claim that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) -- the same statutes at issue in the first-term travel-ban case -- authorize the president to subject the entry of noncitizens into the United States to whatever monetary exactions he deems appropriate. A parallel case has been filed in the District of Massachusetts by California and other blue states.
I think this case is very similar to the IEEPA decision, where the court held that although the president may prohibit, restrict, or regulate imports by setting quotas and embargoes, that authority does not permit him to subject the importation of goods to monetary exactions like tariffs, even if those exactions "may accomplish regulatory ends." As the president put it, he’s “allowed to destroy the country" by imposing ‘a foreign country-destroying embargo’, but not allowed to "charge a little fee."
Similarly, while the president may "suspend the entry of all aliens" or "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate" under § 1182(f) -- and thus may impose travel bans -- he may not impose a fee that is plainly designed to serve a regulatory purpose rather than merely to cover administrative costs associated with issuing visas.
Who benefits from this decision?
On March 9, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit (Wilkins, Katsas, and Childs) will hear Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, in which the Chamber of Commerce challenges the Trump administration’s claim that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) -- the same statutes at issue in the first-term travel-ban case -- authorize the president to subject the entry of noncitizens into the United States to whatever monetary exactions he deems appropriate. A parallel case has been filed in the District of Massachusetts by California and other blue states.
I think this case is very similar to the IEEPA decision, where the court held that although the president may prohibit, restrict, or regulate imports by setting quotas and embargoes, that authority does not permit him to subject the importation of goods to monetary exactions like tariffs, even if those exactions "may accomplish regulatory ends." As the president put it, he’s “allowed to destroy the country" by imposing ‘a foreign country-destroying embargo’, but not allowed to "charge a little fee."
Similarly, while the president may "suspend the entry of all aliens" or "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate" under § 1182(f) -- and thus may impose travel bans -- he may not impose a fee that is plainly designed to serve a regulatory purpose rather than merely to cover administrative costs associated with issuing visas.
Will the Judgment in the IEEPA Case Doom Trump’s Plan to Impose a $100,000 Fee on H-1B Skilled Workers?
Who benefits from this decision?
On March 9, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit (Wilkins, Katsas, and Childs) will hear Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, in which the Chamber of Commerce challenges the Trump administration’s claim that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a) -- the same statutes at issue in the first-term travel-ban case -- authorize the president to subject the entry of noncitizens into the United States to whatever monetary exactions he deems appropriate. A parallel case has been filed in the District of Massachusetts by California and other blue states.
I think this case is very similar to the IEEPA decision, where the court held that although the president may prohibit, restrict, or regulate imports by setting quotas and embargoes, that authority does not permit him to subject the importation of goods to monetary exactions like tariffs, even if those exactions "may accomplish regulatory ends." As the president put it, he’s “allowed to destroy the country" by imposing ‘a foreign country-destroying embargo’, but not allowed to "charge a little fee."
Similarly, while the president may "suspend the entry of all aliens" or "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate" under § 1182(f) -- and thus may impose travel bans -- he may not impose a fee that is plainly designed to serve a regulatory purpose rather than merely to cover administrative costs associated with issuing visas.
0 Comments
0 Shares
47 Views
0 Reviews
