Reymundo Mendoza v. Thomas Perez
410 U.S. App. D.C. 210
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- The DOL issued two 2011 Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) setting special H-2A procedures for open-range cattleherders and for sheepherders/goatherders; the TEGLs lowered wage and housing standards compared with general H-2A regulations and prior procedures.
- Three U.S. workers with herding experience sued under the APA, alleging the TEGLs are legislative rules promulgated without required notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Intervenors (herding industry groups) defended the TEGLs; the district court dismissed for lack of Article III and prudential standing. Plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit considered: (1) Article III competitor standing for displaced/willing herders; (2) whether plaintiffs fall within the INA’s zone of interests (prudential/ statutory standing); (3) whether the claims were time-barred; and (4) whether the TEGLs were legislative rules subject to APA notice-and-comment.
- The court held plaintiffs had Article III standing and fell within the INA zone of interests; the court rejected statute-of-limitations bar and concluded the TEGLs are legislative (substantive) rules promulgated without notice and comment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (competitor injury) | Plaintiffs are experienced, willing, and qualified herders deterred from working by depressed wages/conditions caused by TEGLs | TEGLs do not harm U.S. herders and merely implement INA; plaintiffs not current competitors | Plaintiffs have competitor standing: affidavits show market participation, willingness, and concrete injury traceable to TEGLs |
| Zone of interests (statutory standing under INA/APA) | Plaintiffs are the class INA aims to protect (U.S. workers whose wages/conditions may be harmed by admitted foreign labor) | Plaintiffs are not "willing and available" because they refuse current job offers at prevailing TEGL wages | Plaintiffs fall within INA zone of interests; refusing substandard work does not remove them from protection |
| Statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2401) | The challenged TEGLs constitute final agency action within six years of filing (2011 TEGLs or earlier 2007/2011 actions restarted accrual) | Prior guidance predating six years bars suit; plaintiffs waited too long | Claims are timely: open-range TEGLs first issued within six years and 2011 sheepherder TEGLs substantively altered 2001 procedures, restarting accrual |
| APA notice-and-comment requirement (interpretative/procedural vs legislative rule) | TEGLs are substantive: they set wages, housing, recordkeeping, and other binding requirements; thus legislative rules requiring notice-and-comment | TEGLs are interpretative or procedural guidance exempt from notice-and-comment | TEGLs are legislative/substantive rules (not interpretative or mere procedural guidance); promulgation without notice-and-comment violated the APA |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (zone-of-interests framework and cause-of-action analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements and procedural-rights relaxation for imminent injury)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (definition of final agency action)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (injury-in-fact via abstaining from prior recreational/occupational conduct)
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Homeland Security, 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing procedural rules from substantive rules when public interests are materially affected)
- Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (interpretative and procedural rule exemptions under APA)