throbber
USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1953014 Filed: 06/30/2022 Page 1 of 4
`Oral Argument November 3, 2021
`No. 21-5028
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the
`
`District of Columbia CircuitWashington Alliance of Technology Workers,
`
`Appellant,
`v.
`United States Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
`Appellees.
`
`On appeal from an order entered in the
`United States District Court for the District of Columbia
`No. 1:16−cv−01170−RBW
`The Hon. Reggie Walton
`Notice of Supplemental Authority
`
`
`
`June 30, 2022
`
`Immigration Reform
`Law Institute
`Attorneys for the Appellant
`25 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
`Suite 335
`Washington D.C. 20001
`(202) 232-5590
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1953014 Filed: 06/30/2022 Page 2 of 4
`1
`
`Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Proce-
`
`dure, the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers submits
`
`this notice of supplementary authority.
`
`Today the United States Supreme Court released its opinion
`
`in West Virginia v. EPA, slip op., 597 U.S. ____ (2022). In West
`
`Virginia, the Court affirmed the major questions doctrine. Id.
`
`at 16–19. Under the major questions doctrine, Congress must
`
`make a “clear statement” in order for an agency to regulate
`
`a fundamental sector of the economy. Id. at 12; see also Gor-
`
`such, J. (concurring) at 9–11 (identifying circumstance where
`
`the Court applies the major questions doctrine). Applying the
`
`major questions doctrine, the Court rejected the EPA’s claim
`
`of vast authority flowing from an “ancillary” provision. Id. at
`
`6, 16–19. Justice Gorsuch also noted that the Court routinely
`
`adopts narrow interpretations of statutes to avoid finding del-
`
`egations of power to agencies unconstitutional under the non-
`
`delegation doctrine. Gorsuch, J. (concurring) at 7–8.
`
`This case is relevant because Washtech has argued that a
`
`definitional provision (8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3)), limited in scope
`
`to its own section, cannot confer on the Department of Home-
`
`land Security the vast authority to permit any class of aliens to
`
`engage in employment through regulation and allow the agency
`
`to create the largest guestworker program in the entire im-
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1953014 Filed: 06/30/2022 Page 3 of 4
`2
`
`migration system entirely through regulation. Op. Br. 28–30.
`
`The case is also relevant because Washtech has argued that
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) should not be interpreted so broadly as
`
`to make it unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine.
`
`Op. Br. 30–32.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Dated: June 30, 2022
`
`John M. Miano
`D.C. Bar No. 1003068
`Attorney of Record for
`Washington Alliance of
`Technology Workers
`(908) 273-9207
`miano@colosseumbuilders.com
`
`

`

`USCA Case #21-5028 Document #1953014 Filed: 06/30/2022 Page 4 of 4
`3
`
`CertifiCAte of ServiCe
`I certify that on June 30, 2022 I filed Appellant’s Notice of Sup-
`
`plemental Authority with the ECF system that will provide no-
`
`tice and copies to the parties’ counsel of record.
`
`John M. Miano
`D.C. Bar No. 1003068
`(908) 273-9207
`miano@colosseumbuilders.com
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket