975 F.3d 150
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs: SEIU Local 200 United and SEIU challenged three Presidential Executive Orders (May 2018) and OPM Guidances (July 2018) addressing federal collective bargaining, union representational time, and discipline/removal procedures.
- Defendants: President Donald J. Trump and Michael J. Rigas, Acting Director of OPM.
- Plaintiffs sued (Aug. 13, 2019) under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Civil Service Reform Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and moved for a TRO and preliminary injunction.
- The district court denied the TRO (Oct. 3, 2019) and denied the preliminary injunction (Dec. 10, 2019), holding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the substantive APA claim and that the procedural APA claim (failure to use notice-and-comment) was unlikely to succeed because OPM Guidances merely summarized legally binding Executive Orders.
- On appeal the Second Circuit reviewed the preliminary-injunction denial for abuse of discretion (and jurisdiction de novo) and affirmed the district court’s decision for substantially the same reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Unions' substantive APA challenge | District court may hear the substantive APA claim; Orders/Guidances exceed lawful authority and are reviewable | CSRA/administrative-review scheme precludes district-court jurisdiction; exclusive administrative remedies exist | Court affirmed: district court lacked jurisdiction over the substantive APA claim |
| Whether OPM "Guidances" were subject to APA notice-and-comment (procedural APA claim) | Guidances impose binding legal rules and thus required notice-and-comment | Guidances merely summarize the legally binding Executive Orders and are not rulemaking subject to notice-and-comment | Court affirmed: Unions unlikely to succeed; Guidances not subject to notice-and-comment because they only summarized binding Orders |
Key Cases Cited
- N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) (standard of review for preliminary injunction)
- Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 880 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion framework described)
- Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2017) (de novo review for jurisdictional questions; clear-error standard for related factual findings)
- Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. Trump, 929 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (administrative-review scheme can preclude district-court jurisdiction)