Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1

Save Jobs USA, an association of former tech workers replaced by H-1B holders, sued under the Administrative Procedure Act to vacate DHS’s 2015 "H-4 Rule," which allows certain H-4 spouses to apply for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
The H-4 Rule permits EADs only for H-4 spouses whose H-1B partners are pursuing lawful permanent residency via AC21 extensions or have approved I-140 petitions; DHS estimated up to ~179,600 potential applicants in year one.
Save Jobs sought a preliminary injunction (denied for lack of imminent irreparable injury) and then moved for summary judgment; DHS cross‑moved for summary judgment and asked the court to strike parts of Save Jobs’ appendix that post‑dated the complaint.
The court struck portions of the appendix that post‑dated the complaint and were offered to establish standing, but allowed other materials relevant to standing that pre‑dated filing.
The court concluded Save Jobs lacked Article III standing because it failed to show an actual or imminent injury from increased competition by H-4 or H-1B workers attributable to the H-4 Rule.
The court alternatively found the H-4 Rule likely within DHS’s statutory authority and not arbitrary and capricious, but did not reach a definitive merits ruling because of the standing disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing — injury‑in‑fact from competition by H-4 holders	H-4 EADs will create immediate competition for tech jobs and injure members	Only a subset eligible; no evidence H-4 holders will seek members’ jobs; speculative	No standing — speculative, not an imminent or concrete injury
Standing — competition from H-1B holders	H-4 Rule incentivizes H-1Bs to remain and increases H-1B competition	Rule only aids families to remain during LPR process; Congress controls H-1B caps	No standing — no causal link showing increased H-1B competition from the Rule
Standing — conferral of benefit on competitors	Granting EADs benefits competitors and injures members	Benefit is general (family stability), not a commercial subsidy to competitors	No standing — benefit alleged is not an injury to plaintiffs
Merits — statutory authority / APA arbitrary & capricious claim	DHS lacked authority; rule conflicts with INA labor protections	DHS has longstanding delegated authority to authorize employment and reasonably interpreted statutes; considered impacts and followed notice & comment	Court would uphold DHS under Chevron and State Farm standards, but did not decide merits due to lack of standing

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (third‑party injuries impose a heavier burden to prove causation and redressability)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (agency reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statute reviewed under Chevron)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (APA review: agency must show rational connection between facts and decision)
Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (competitor standing requires direct and current competition or imminent increase in competition)
Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (plaintiff may sue before actual injury but must show clear and immediate potential for competitive harm)
Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, 134 S. Ct. 1377 (zone‑of‑interests test for statutory causes of action)
New World Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164 (agency action conferring benefits on competitors can constitute an injury)