On October 14, 2025, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the H-4 EAD program brought by groups that opposed the creation of the H-4 EAD. This development effectively ends a long-running lawsuit aimed at terminating work permits for certain H-4 visa holders. For the spouses of high-skilled H-1B workers – many of them highly educated professionals themselves – the ability to work has been life-changing, especially as they are stuck in the decades long green card backlog. To understand why this is so significant, let’s look at the history of the H-4 EAD, the saga of the lawsuits against it, and what the future might hold for this program.

History of the H-4 EAD Program

What is an H-4 EAD? H-4 visas are issued to the dependent family members (spouses and children) of H-1B visa holders. Prior to 2015, H-4 visa holders were not authorized to work in the United States. Many spouses of H-1B professionals—often with advanced degrees and valuable skills—found themselves stuck at home, unable to pursue careers or contribute financially, even as their families sometimes waited years for green cards. This situation not only created financial and personal stress for immigrant families, but it also made the U.S. less attractive to the very high-skilled workers that companies wanted to recruit and retain.

2015 H-4 EAD Regulation: In 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Obama administration introduced a regulation to address this issue. The new rule allowed certain H-4 dependent spouses to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). Not every H-4 spouse would qualify – the work permits were limited to those whose H-1B spouses were already on the path to lawful permanent residency (for example, the H-1B worker had an approved employment-based green card petition or had extended H-1B status beyond the usual six-year limit based on pending green card processing). The rationale was that these families were committed to staying in the United States long-term, and letting the spouses work would ease financial burdens and improve quality of life during the transition to permanent residency. This was created to be more aligned with the congressional intent of AC-21 to retain high-skilled workers stuck in the green card backlog by allowing their spouses to work.

Impact of the H-4 EAD: The change took effect in May 2015 and was met with enthusiasm from the immigrant community. The vast majority of these H-4 EAD holders have been women, largely from green card backlog countries, which now in 2025 includes people from all nations. With work authorization, H-4 visa holders have been able to find jobs, start businesses, and use their education and talents – in many cases contributing to fields like technology, research, healthcare, and finance. The program’s goals were aligned with the broader aim of attracting and retaining skilled workers by making their family life in the U.S. more sustainable.

The Save Jobs USA Lawsuit: A Long-Running Battle

No sooner had the H-4 EAD rule been enacted than it faced a legal challenge. In April 2015, a group called Save Jobs USA filed a lawsuit against DHS to overturn the new rule. Save Jobs USA is an organization of American tech workers who argued that allowing H-4 spouses to work would create unfair competition and threaten U.S. workers’ jobs. They also contended that DHS lacked the legal authority to grant work authorization to this group without an act of Congress.

Save Jobs USA’s Arguments: The lawsuit claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act did not explicitly give DHS power to authorize employment for H-4 visa holders. In their view, work eligibility for any visa category should be determined by Congress, not by an agency regulation. They raised concerns that the H-4 EAD rule could take jobs away from U.S. citizens, and pointed to the tech sector where both H-1B workers and many H-4 spouses have backgrounds in IT or engineering. On the other side, DHS (backed by tech companies and immigrant advocates) maintained that the law broadly empowers the government to authorize employment for immigrants in the U.S., and that the rule was a proper exercise of that authority. DHS also argued that the impact on American workers was minimal – even if every eligible H-4 spouse got a job, the increase in the U.S. labor force would be marginal (DHS had estimated it at well under one percent of the workforce).

Journey Through the Courts: The litigation over the H-4 EAD has stretched out for nearly a decade, with many twists and turns. Here is a brief timeline of the key events in Save Jobs USA v. DHS. Links to documents can be found on this AILA Alert that was a critical resource for the chart below

Date	Event	Outcome / Key Points
Apr 23, 2015	Save Jobs USA files lawsuit	A group of U.S. tech workers challenges DHS’s new rule permitting certain H-4 spouses to obtain work authorization, arguing DHS exceeded its authority and that the rule would harm U.S. workers.
May 24, 2015	Preliminary injunction denied	The District Court finds no irreparable harm and allows the H-4 EAD rule to take effect. Plaintiffs cannot show immediate damage to their employment prospects.
Sept 27, 2016	District Court Judgment (Dismissal for Lack of Standing)	Judge Chutkan grants summary judgment for DHS, ruling that Save Jobs USA lacks standing. The plaintiffs fail to show a concrete injury from the rule’s implementation, such as a lost job or wage impact. Because they cannot meet the constitutional threshold for standing, the court never reaches the merits. The H-4 EAD rule remains in effect.
Apr 3, 2017	Case paused for regulatory review	DHS requests a hold while the Trump administration considers rescinding the H-4 EAD through new rulemaking.
Jun 23, 2017	Appeal held in abeyance	The D.C. Circuit grants DHS’s motion to pause proceedings while regulatory reconsideration proceeds.
Sept 27, 2017	Abeyance extended	DHS seeks to extend the pause through year-end. The court maintains the stay despite plaintiff objections.
Nov 17, 2017	Abeyance formalized	The D.C. Circuit orders the case held in abeyance until further notice—freezing litigation pending DHS action.
Sept 21, 2018	DHS reports proposed rollback	DHS confirms it intends to publish a proposed rule removing H-4 spouses from employment eligibility.
Dec 17, 2018	Immigration Voice intervenes	The pro-immigrant group joins the case to defend the rule. The court lifts the abeyance and sets a briefing schedule to move the litigation forward.
Jan–Mar 2019	Briefing extensions granted	The parties receive short extensions to coordinate submissions and finalize briefing.
Sept 16, 2019	DHS seeks oral-argument delay	DHS cites ongoing rulemaking and asks to postpone argument. The D.C. Circuit declines to delay further.
Nov 8, 2019	D.C. Circuit Judgment (Standing Restored)	The Court of Appeals reverses the 2016 dismissal, holding that Save Jobs USA does have standing. The panel finds members of the group plausibly face competitive injury as tech workers affected by new entrants to the labor market. The case is remanded to District Court for a decision on the merits. The ruling revives the litigation and renews uncertainty for H-4 EAD holders.
Oct 5, 2020	Status report filed	DHS reports that its proposed rule to rescind the H-4 EAD is delayed due to COVID-19 and competing priorities. The parties disagree on whether to proceed or wait.
Feb 2, 2021	New administration review	Judge Chutkan orders a status update to determine if the case will proceed under the Biden administration, which signals support for retaining H-4 EADs.
Apr 2, 2021	Renewed summary-judgment motion	Save Jobs USA again seeks summary judgment to invalidate the H-4 EAD, while DHS and Immigration Voice defend the rule’s legality.
Mar 28, 2023	District Court Judgment (H-4 EAD Upheld)	Judge Chutkan issues a major ruling in favor of DHS. The court holds that DHS has broad statutory authority under the INA to authorize employment for noncitizens, noting decades of similar regulatory practices. The decision rejects the claim that the rule was “arbitrary and capricious,” finding DHS properly weighed the economic impact and policy benefits. The court emphasizes that DHS considered that allowing H-4 spouses to work benefits families and employers with minimal effect on U.S. workers. This marks the first definitive judicial approval of the H-4 EAD on the merits.
Aug 2, 2024	D.C. Circuit Judgment (Affirmed)	The Court of Appeals upholds Judge Chutkan’s ruling. It affirms that DHS’s authority to grant work authorization is well-established and that Save Jobs USA failed to show any concrete harm. The opinion strengthens precedent for agency discretion in employment authorization. The decision cements the H-4 EAD’s legal footing after years of uncertainty.
Oct 2025	Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari	Save Jobs USA petitions the Supreme Court for review, claiming DHS exceeded its authority. On October 14, 2025, the Court declines to hear the case, letting the D.C. Circuit’s decision stand. This effectively ends the nine-year legal battle, confirming the H-4 EAD program’s validity and providing long-awaited stability for thousands of families.

The Courtroom Wasn’t the Only Fight: Efforts to End H-4 EAD Through Regulation

The courtroom fight wasn’t the only front in the battle over H-4 work authorization. The Trump administration (2017–2021) took a hard line on immigration programs and viewed the H-4 EAD rule unfavorably. In April 2017, President Trump signed the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which, among other things, directed a review of employment-based immigration policies. Shortly thereafter, DHS announced it intended to rescind the H-4 EAD rule. This would be done not by an immediate cancellation, but through the federal regulatory process (which requires proposing a new rule, taking public comments, and then finalizing it).

For several years, the H-4 EAD program lived under the cloud of a potential rollback. The proposed rule to end H-4 spousal work permits slowly made its way through bureaucratic steps. By late 2018, “Removing H-4 Dependent Spouses from the Class of Aliens Eligible for Employment Authorization” appeared on the government’s regulatory agenda. In February 2019, DHS even sent a draft proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for review – a clear sign they were serious about ending the program. This dragged on, leaving thousands of H-4 visa holders anxious about their futures. Many already working H-4 spouses feared they might suddenly lose their jobs if the rescission rule was finalized, and those who were eligible but hadn’t applied yet were in limbo.

Why the Rollback Stalled: Despite the Trump administration’s intent, the elimination of H-4 EAD kept getting delayed. There was significant pushback from the business community and immigrant rights advocates during the process. Every time a target date for publishing the proposed rule approached, it seemed to slip further. One reason was likely the complexity of justifying the change. The administration would have had to rebut the original rule’s findings that H-4 work authorization benefits the U.S. economy and has minimal downside. Additionally, since Save Jobs USA’s lawsuit was pending at the same time, DHS had to be careful – any statements made in the rulemaking process could influence the litigation and vice versa. In fact, the ongoing court case was part of why DHS kept requesting the courts to pause proceedings; they expected to moot the case by axing the program through regulations. However, drafting a regulation and navigating the required procedures proved slow, and public commentary would have almost certainly been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the H-4 EAD.

In the end, the regulatory rollback never crossed the finish line. January 2021 brought a new administration, and one of President Biden’s first actions was to freeze and reconsider pending regulations from the prior administration. The proposed H-4 EAD rescission was officially withdrawn before it was ever finalized. In other words, the Trump-era effort to end the program was effectively canceled. The Biden administration’s stance has been openly supportive of the H-4 EAD. In fact, early in 2021 the White House even mentioned in a fact sheet that they would seek to codify work authorization for H-1B spouses in law (as part of a broader immigration reform bill, which has yet to pass Congress). While the legislative effort stalled, it sent a clear message that, at least under the Biden administration, H-4 EAD was here to stay.

What Lies Ahead Under Trump 2.0 for H-4 EAD

With President Trump back in office, the H-4 EAD program enters a new period of uncertainty. Immigration policy has already shifted toward a more restrictive framework, emphasizing reduced overall immigration levels—including employment-based pathways. Programs once considered stable, such as dependent work authorization, could be re-examined under broader efforts to tighten visa eligibility and enforcement.

Critics of the H-4 EAD continue to argue that DHS exceeded its authority in creating the rule and that the influx of H-4 spouses into the workforce may disadvantage U.S. workers in certain sectors. Supporters, by contrast, view the rule as a lifeline for high-skilled immigrant families and a key retention tool for U.S. employers competing globally for talent. These competing narratives—economic protection versus innovation retention—will likely shape the debate once again as policy priorities evolve.

Trump 1.0 attempted to end the H-4 EAD through rulemaking, but the proposal never reached final publication. Under Trump 2.0, DHS could revive those efforts with sharper focus. Possible actions include issuing a new notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind or narrow eligibility for work authorization, or directing internal reviews that slow or suspend EAD adjudications while new regulations are developed. Although any change would still need to follow the notice-and-comment process, the administration might move swiftly and test the limits of executive authority to reshape employment-based immigration policy.

That said, the program’s legal footing is stronger than ever. The D.C. Circuit’s 2024 decision affirming DHS’s authority—and the Supreme Court’s subsequent refusal to disturb it—establish clear precedent that will constrain future rollbacks. Any rescission effort would face procedural scrutiny, extensive public opposition, and likely litigation from affected families, employers, and advocacy organizations. The courts may be less willing to revisit settled questions of statutory authority that have already been litigated and decided.

Meanwhile, industry and advocacy groups are preparing for a defensive posture. Companies and business coalitions that employ H-4 EAD holders are expected to push back through public-comment campaigns and, if necessary, lawsuits. Their argument remains consistent: restricting H-4 spousal work authorization undermines U.S. competitiveness, disrupts family stability, and discourages top global talent from committing to long-term careers in the United States.

Even amid potential regulatory headwinds, smaller administrative improvements may continue. USCIS has recently streamlined certain renewal and biometrics procedures and provided automatic-extension protections for some applicants—changes that could remain in place regardless of political direction because they enhance operational efficiency. Some lawmakers from both parties have also suggested codifying H-4 EAD eligibility through legislation, which would remove the issue from the ebb and flow of executive policy.

In short, while Trump 2.0 brings renewed challenges, the H-4 EAD today stands on firmer legal and institutional ground than at any point in its history. Its survival will depend not only on litigation outcomes but also on the strength of advocacy, the persistence of employers who rely on high-skilled talent, and the continuing recognition that family stability and workforce participation go hand in hand in sustaining the U.S. innovation economy.

Conclusion

The decade-long battle over the H-4 EAD underscores how deeply immigration policy can shape the lives of high-skilled workers and their families—and how fragile even well-established programs can be under shifting administrations. The Supreme Court’s refusal to disturb lower-court rulings has cemented the program’s legality, but legality and longevity are not the same. With President Trump once again signaling a restrictive approach to employment-based immigration, the H-4 EAD may stand as both a legal precedent and a political target.

Still, the program’s survival through litigation and multiple administrations is a testament to its value—to families, to employers, and to the broader U.S. economy. Every time it has been tested, the H-4 EAD has proven its worth: enabling spouses to contribute their skills, supporting economic stability, and helping companies retain global talent. Whether it endures now will depend on the balance of law, policy, and advocacy.

For immigrant families, the message is clear: the courts have upheld their right to work, but the fight to preserve that right may begin anew. For policymakers, the challenge is to decide whether America remains a nation that attracts and keeps talent by empowering—not sidelining—the very families who make that possible.

Reddy Neumann Brown PC located in Houston, Texas, has been serving the business immigration community for over 25 years and is Houston’s largest immigration law firm focused solely on U.S. Employment-based and investor-based immigration. We work with employers, employees and investors helping them navigate the immigration process quickly and cost-effectively.

By: Steven Brown

Steven A. Brown is a Partner at Reddy Neumann Brown PC, where he leads the firm’s Litigation Team, addressing delays and denials of immigration benefits, FOIA requests, and policy and regulatory challenges. Steven is dedicated to delivering practical and effective solutions for clients facing unreasonably delayed or unlawfully withheld immigration benefits, including Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), advance parole, green cards, 221(g) decisions, EB-5 delays, and other immigration-related matters. His litigation efforts were instrumental in Shergill, et al. v. Mayorkas, a landmark case that led to the U.S. government recognizing that under the INA, L-2 and E visa spouses are authorized to work incident to their status, eliminating the need for separate EAD applications. This case has transformed work authorization for thousands of families across the United States.