Published
June 08, 2026
The Founders knew that population growth and economic growth are inextricably linked. They knew that a nation grows stronger not by closing itself off, but by welcoming those who seek opportunity and are willing to work hard. And they knew that by obstructing naturalization and discouraging immigration, England was stifling the colonies’ labor supply and long-term economic development.
It was with that knowledge that, in the Declaration of Independence, the Founders protested that the British government had “endeavoured to prevent the population of these States” by “obstructing the Laws for Naturalization” and by “refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.”
The Constitution enshrines the Founders’ recognition that the future of the nation depended on the legislature’s power over our immigration laws. It assigns to Congress the role of establishing “a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” thereby ensuring that immigration policy would be accountable to the people through their elected representatives.
Protecting the Growth of the Workforce
Today, immigration policy sits at the intersection of two mutually reinforcing priorities, economic growth and national security. The Litigation Center has advocated for a robust, uniform system of legal immigration that will help grow the economy and that serves as a vital complement to the important goals of securing the border and combating illegal immigration.
As part of that work, we have defended the necessity of uniform federal standards for immigration law and fought against state and local efforts to override federal immigration law. For example, in 2007 and 2008, we filed two amicusbriefs in support of a constitutional challenge to a local Pennsylvania ordinance that attempted to regulate the employment of illegal immigrants, successfully arguing that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempted the ordinance.
Read More in the America at 250 Series
We have also fought to ensure that the federal government follows the laws passed by the people’s elected representatives when changing immigration rules. In some cases that has meant fighting for the executive to use the procedural safeguards Congress has imposed, as in our 2013 amicus brief advocating for a notice-and-comment rulemaking to clarify DOL’s foreign labor certification regulation, which left employers without clear standards by which to develop and implement foreign labor certification systems.
And in some cases, we have defended beneficial immigration policies that followed the proper procedures, as with our amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit arguing that the H-4 Rule—which allows spouses of H-1B skilled workers who have been approved for permanent residency to obtain employment authorization and which has contributed billions of dollars to the GDP—was a lawful exercise of DHS’s notice-and-comment rulemaking authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
We also have filed our own lawsuits challenging burdensome immigration rules and intervened as a party in defense of sensible ones. For example, in 2015, we challenged DOL amendments to the H-2B visa program, which employers use to fill temporary non‑agricultural jobs. From 2018 through 2023, we successfully intervened to defend the Optional Practical Training program for STEM graduates alongside the Trump administration, participating in the proceedings from the district court all the way to the Supreme Court. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, we obtained a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a proclamation that banned H-1B, H-2B, L-1, and J-1 workers from entering the country.
This work in defense of a uniform and lawful immigration system continues today. Most recently, we filed a lawsuit challenging the presidential proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions for those outside the United States, arguing that it constitutes an impermissible tax and conflicts with Congress’s carefully structured scheme for the H‑1B program. Our appeal in that case is pending before the DC Circuit.
Looking Ahead
A free society must remain open to those willing to contribute, innovate, and work hard, and it must do so through the rule of law, not arbitrary power. The Litigation Center will continue to advocate in the courts for a robust system of lawful immigration that allows American businesses to meet their workforce needs and grow the economy, to the benefit of all Americans.
Read More in the Series
About the authors
Daryl Joseffer
Daryl Joseffer is president at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A former principal deputy solicitor general, Joseffer has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed many more. He has argued dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.
Matthew Sappington
Matthew P. Sappington is counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In this capacity, he handles a variety of litigation matters for the Chamber.
