Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
249 F. Supp. 3d 524
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Washtech (a union for STEM workers) sued DHS and related agencies challenging the 1992 OPT regulation (12‑month OPT) and the 2016 rule that extended STEM OPT by 24 months, alleging statutory exceedance, CRA and APA violations, and arbitrary-and-capricious agency action.
- Previously Washtech challenged the 2008 (17‑month) STEM OPT rule; a district court vacated that rule for lack of notice-and-comment, the D.C. Cir. later dismissed the appeal as moot after DHS promulgated the 2016 rule.
- Washtech identified three union members (Sawade, Blatt, Smith) who applied for STEM jobs between 2008–2016 and alleged they lost opportunities because of OPT beneficiaries.
- Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, lack of standing, time‑bar, and failure to state plausible APA claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Court dismissed Washtech’s challenge to the 1992 rule for lack of standing, but found Washtech had Article III and prudential (zone‑of‑interests) standing to challenge the 2016 rule on competitor‑standing grounds; however, the Court dismissed on the merits because Washtech failed to plead plausible APA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge 1992 OPT rule | 1992 rule allows OPT competition that injures members | No member identified who suffered injury traceable to 1992 rule; claims focus on post‑2008 facts | Dismissed for lack of standing (Count I) |
| Standing to challenge 2016 OPT rule (competitor standing) | Members face increased competition from STEM OPT beneficiaries; named members actively compete in the STEM job market | Alleged harms are speculative/attributable to third parties; members not direct/current competitors | Granted: Washtech has Article III standing under competitor‑standing for 2016 rule |
| Zone of interests (prudential standing) | Protecting U.S. workers falls within the INA’s interests; F‑1 and H‑1B provisions are integrally related | F‑1 provisions are student‑focused and do not protect domestic workers; Congress declined to impose H‑1B labor protections on F‑1 | Granted: Washtech’s interest in protecting U.S. workers arguably falls within the zone of interests (so APA review is available) |
| Merits — procedural (CRA; incorporation by reference) and substantive APA claims (arbitrary & capricious) | 2016 rule violated CRA notice/incorporation and is arbitrary because it singles out STEM and mandates mentoring for OPT beneficiaries not available to Americans | CRA claims not judicially reviewable; DHS sought notice and comment; incorporation allegations inadequately pleaded; arbitrary‑and‑capricious claim is conclusory | Dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6): procedural CRA/incorporation claims and substantive arbitrary‑and‑capricious claims fail for inadequate pleading (Counts II–IV dismissed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (association standing requires at least one member with standing)
- Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (no standing where injury results from independent third‑party action)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002 (competitor standing and zone‑of‑interests analysis in immigration/labor context)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (zone‑of‑interests test for APA standing)