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.

Nothing prevents the administration from changing the law then, last time I checked their party holds all three branches of government + SCOTUS.

Are we referring to the same administration that is met with immediate resistance from an activist judiciary whenever it tries to do literally anything?

Passing a constitutionally valid law through congress and then having the executive branch enforce it would not meet any judicial resistance.

I suspect the courts would welcome it.

Maybe they should stop trying to do illegal things.

Is this thing they're doing illegal?

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.

What is the evidence of selective enforcement?

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?"

Why would you give this administration the benefit of doubt?

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.

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.

The laws were written carefully with the full support of industry lobbyists for maximal benefit. These are not accidents.

Following the published guidelines is not exploiting them. If the government doesn’t like their own guidelines, they should change them.

Agreed, if a company wants to fill roles it advertises on linked in. Maybe the rules need updating.

Where "100% exploiting the process" means complying 100% with the standards.

Ethereum has “code is law”, but we can still have a notion of the code being exploited, because it is the intent that’s been exploited

Not really. Meta had to change advertising to allow online applications.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-labor-depart...

It's called malicious compliance