Yes, these are literally the guidelines provided by the DOL. And the government seems to want to punish companies for following the exact published guidelines.
Oh come on, if a company is placing job ads to comply with the letter of this law in 2026 they're 100% exploiting the process Vance outlines and would undoubtedly try to exploit whatever the replacement process was as well.
Correction: SCOTUS is not owned by any political party. Activists can claim whatever they want about the voting record of the justices, but SCOTUS is above petty politics.
The purpose of the system is what it does. At the very least 2 votes on the bench are default admin votes. It's not the activists who are claiming things. You can look up overall SCOTUS approval trendlines.
Are we referring to the same administration that is met with immediate resistance from an activist judiciary whenever it tries to do literally anything?
No, just selective enforcement and maybe sending a message that if you don't behave, the administration may look a bit harder into you than it normally would.
I don't have evidence, I am operating under the assumption that e.g. folks behind jobs.now [1] did their homework. This is also what the OP of this whole thread claimed. [2]
[1] https://www.jobs.now/blog/unveiling-the-truth-about-h-1b-vis... "The Jobs.Now team has reviewed job postings from dozens of top companies like Meta, Block, Doordash, and Netflix which require unusual application processes like emailing or paper-mailing the application to specialized addresses, or using unbranded separate websites for collecting applications for jobs." + search for occurrence of "Apple"
[2] "My understanding is that this is pretty much how everyone does it, no?"
No, it is meeting resistance from judges that follow the law. It is also meeting support from judges who dont care, including majority of supreme court.
