Mendoza v. Solis
924 F. Supp. 2d 307
D.D.C.2013Background
- Four former open-range agricultural workers challenge two DOL TEGLs under the APA for lack of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Defendants include the Secretary of Labor and the DOL; intervenors are Western Range Association and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service.
- TEGLs 2011 addressed special procedures for H-2A certifications for sheepherders, goatherders, and open-range livestock occupations.
- Plaintiffs allege the TEGLs depress wages/conditions and were promulgated without notice-and-comment procedures.
- Court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing after determining plaintiffs lack Article III standing and zone-of-interests protection.
- Procedural posture includes cross-motions for summary judgment; court resolves the standing issue, leading to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have Article III standing? | Plaintiffs assert ongoing injury from depressed wages/conditions due to TEGLs and a right to compete for open-range jobs. | Defendants contend plaintiffs lack concrete injury, current competition, or imminent harm from TEGLs. | Plaintiffs lack standing; dismissed for lack of injury-in-fact. |
| Are plaintiffs within the INA zone of interests for H-2A certification? | INA protects U.S. workers like plaintiffs who would work as herders if TEGLs didn’t depress wages. | Plaintiffs are not willing/available or similarly employed relative to those harmed by foreign labor; outside zone. | Plaintiffs are outside the INA zone of interests; prudential standing fails. |
| If standing fails, does the court have jurisdiction to hear APA challenge? | Relies on APA to vacate TEGLs for procedural defects in rulemaking. | Without standing, no jurisdiction to adjudicate the APA claim. | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; action dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three-element standing test; injury, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing with prospective relief; ongoing injury required)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's conduct)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires imminent, real danger for injunctive relief)
- Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987) (zone-of-interests test; whether Congress intended a class to sue)
- Patchak v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (zone-of-interests analysis; remedial scope of statute)
- Pesikoff v. Sec’y of Labor, 501 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (employers challenging denial of H-2A certification within INA zone)
- De Jesus Ramirez v. Reich, 156 F.3d 1273 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (zone-of-interests extension to alien workers challenging labor certifications)
- Shays v. FEC, 414 F.3d 76 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (competition and standing; analysis of plausible injury)
- Mobile Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (competitor standing requires actual or imminent financial injury)
- KERM, Inc. v. FCC, 353 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (competitor standing; direct and current competitor required)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (economic injury and standing principles relevant to competition)
- Snake River Farmers’ Ass’n, Inc. v. US, 9 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 1993) (speculative employment prospects insufficient for standing)