Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland SEC.
892 F.3d 332
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Washtech, a union representing STEM workers, challenged DHS regulations allowing F-1 nonimmigrant students to remain and work in the U.S. after graduation via Optional Practical Training (OPT), targeting the 1992 and 2016 Rules (the 2008 Rule previously vacated).
- The 1992 Rule authorized one year of OPT after graduation; the 2016 Rule extended certain STEM OPT periods up to 24 months and added employer attestations and safeguards.
- Washtech filed four counts: (I) 1992 Rule exceeds DHS statutory authority; (II) 2016 Rule exceeds statutory authority; (III) procedural violations in promulgating the 2016 Rule; (IV) 2016 Rule arbitrary and capricious.
- The district court dismissed all counts on mixed grounds: standing, failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), and deeming some claims conceded under D.D.C. Local Rule 7(b).
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Counts I, III, and IV but reversed dismissal of Count II, finding Washtech had competitor standing to challenge the 2016 Rule and that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Count II as conceded under Local Rule 7(b). The panel remanded Count II for further proceedings, including consideration of the reopening doctrine regarding the 1992 Rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 2016 Rule | Washtech alleged economic injury from increased competition by OPT STEM workers (competitor standing). | DHS argued no concrete injury and that members were not current competitors. | Court: Washtech has competitor standing for Counts II–IV (injury, causation, redressability satisfied). |
| Timeliness of challenge to 1992 Rule (Count I) | Washtech contended challenge to OPT program authority could proceed; 2016 rule may reopen earlier issues. | DHS argued claim is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (six-year limit). | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Count I as untimely; left reopening-doctrine question to district court on remand. |
| Dismissal under Local Rule 7(b) of Count II | Washtech maintained its complaint itself stated a plausible ultra vires claim and timely filed an opposition. | DHS argued Washtech conceded by failing to respond substantively. | Court: District court abused discretion treating Count II as conceded; complaint stated plausible claim; remand required. |
| Adequacy of Counts III & IV (procedural and APA arbitrary-and-capricious claims) | Washtech alleged CRA violation, inadequate notice-and-comment, incorporation-by-reference defects, and arbitrariness in favoring OPT/STEM. | DHS argued statutory bar to CRA judicial relief, adequate notice-and-comment, lack of pleaded elements for incorporation and arbitrary-and-capricious claims. | Court: Affirmed dismissal of Counts III & IV for failure to state plausible claims under FRCP 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete injury)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and pleading requirements)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F.3d 69 (competitor standing doctrine explained)
- Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (labor-market competitor standing)
- Fox v. American Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291 (review of district court’s use of Local Rule 7(b))
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Shalala, 91 F.3d 1493 (agency authorization causing competitive injury)
- Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. EPA, 374 F.3d 1363 (regulatory action legalizing market entry causes injury)