81 F. Supp. 3d 1291
N.D. Fla.2014Background
- Plaintiffs challenge DOL's 2012 Rule for non-agricultural H-2B workers arguing lack of rulemaking authority under INA.
- INA creates separate H-2A and H-2B programs; DHS administers H-2B petitions while DOL handles labor certification procedures.
- DHS delegates to Labor to establish procedures for administering the H-2B temporary labor certification program.
- DOL issued the 2012 Rule on February 21, 2012, significantly altering H-2B program administration.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in April 2012; district court granted preliminary injunction, Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and now cross-motions for summary judgment are before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the 2012 Rule? | Plaintiffs have a concrete, redressable injury from the Rule. | Redressability lacking because DHS can implement a similar rule under its own authority. | Standing denied? (Court held standing exists; rejected redressability challenge.) |
| Is the court without jurisdiction to review DHS's reliance on DOL's advisory opinions in labor determinations? | Judicial review under the APA is available for agency actions. | Consultation process is committed to agency discretion and not reviewable. | Court has subject-matter jurisdiction; review allowed. |
| Did DOL have legislative rulemaking authority under the INA to issue the 2012 Rule? | INA does not grant DOL general rulemaking authority for H-2B; 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 1184(c)(1) do not confer authority. | DOL derives authority through its consultative role and related statutes, and Wagner-Peyser Act supports rulemaking. | DOL lacked legislative rulemaking authority; 2012 Rule vacated. |
| Does Wagner-Peyser Act authorize DOL to regulate H-2B program via 2012 Rule? | Wagner-Peyser does not extend to H-2B program rulemaking. | Wagner-Peyser provides authority when coordinating with INA programs. | Wagner-Peyser Act does not authorize 2012 Rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires redressable injury)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing and redressability principles)
- Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 641 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2011) (standing: redressability standard applied)
- Motion Picture Ass’n of Am. v. F.C.C., 309 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (agency must have delegated authority to promulgate regulations)
- Real v. Simon, 510 F.2d 557 (11th Cir. 1975) (statutory authority limits agency action)
- Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) (textual delegation governs agency rulemaking)
- Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001) (mandatory vs. discretionary language in statutes)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (interpretation of statutes and delegation principles)
- CBS Inc. v. Prime-Time 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) (expressions of implied authority and statutory interpretation)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (predecessor binding Fifth Circuit decisions adopted)