2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162277
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Hispanic Affairs Project (HAP) and individual herders) challenge DOL’s 2015 Rule setting prevailing wages for H-2A herders under 8 U.S.C. § 1188(a)(1).
- The Court previously dismissed HAP for lack of standing, concluding HAP’s members were not in § 1188(a)(1)’s zone of interests because the opinion suggested "American workers" meant citizens or domestic workers.
- Plaintiffs supplied new supplemental declarations showing at least two HAP members are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) authorized to work in the U.S.
- Defendants opposed reconsideration, arguing prejudice from the late submission and that plaintiffs had not earlier established members’ immigration status.
- The Court invited the government to identify any additional arguments; the government declined to assert new zone-of-interests arguments.
- The Court concluded LPR members qualify as "American workers" under Mendoza and therefore HAP has associational standing to challenge the 2015 Rule along with an individual plaintiff (Llacua).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAP has standing to challenge the 2015 Rule under § 1188(a)(1)'s zone of interests | HAP: some members are LPRs and thus are "American workers" within the statute's zone of interests | Defs: HAP earlier failed to show any members were non-foreign workers; late evidence prejudices defendants | Held: Reconsideration granted; LPR members fall within § 1188(a)(1)'s zone of interests, so HAP has standing |
| Whether "American workers" excludes lawful permanent residents | HAP: Mendoza’s reasoning includes LPRs as U.S. workers; citizenship not required | Defs: implied earlier position that plaintiffs had not shown members were American workers | Held: Court agrees citizenship distinction was an overreading of Mendoza; LPRs qualify as American workers |
| Whether the late-filed declarations warrant reconsideration | HAP: declarations correct prior omission and justify clarification | Defs: late submission prejudiced defense and could have changed arguments | Held: No identified prejudice; Rule 54(b) allows interlocutory reconsideration; declarations considered |
| Associational standing for HAP | HAP: at least one member has individual standing; organizational interests are germane; no need for individual participation | Defs: previously disputed member status | Held: Associational standing satisfied because at least one member (LPR) has standing and other requirements met |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (interpreting § 1188(a)(1) as protecting "American workers" from adverse effects of foreign labor)
- Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez, 206 F. Supp. 3d 348 (D.D.C. 2016) (district court’s prior opinion dismissing HAP for lack of standing)
- Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (associational standing test)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussing Rule 54(b) flexibility for interlocutory reconsideration)