Bookmark and Share

 

LITIGATION

» Access to Courts and Court Remedies

» Campaign Finance and Election Laws

» Constitutional Rights and Requirements

» Health, Safety, and Environment

» Open Government and Open Courts

» Representing Consumers

» Workers' Rights


Currently Featured Topics

Government Transparency
Consumer Justice
First Amendment
Health, Safety and the Environment

SUPREME COURT
ASSISTANCE PROJECT

Read about our work helping lawyers
with cases in the Supreme Court.

 


  Public Citizen | Litigation Cases ***Search other cases***

Zacarias Mendoza v. Perez

Topic(s): Worker's Rights

Documents:

Related Press Releases:

Description:

We are co-counsel for plaintiffs in this Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Department of Labor (DOL) “special procedures” for employers seeking to use the H-2A program to hire temporary foreign workers for jobs in sheepherding, goatherding, and the open range production of livestock. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Secretary of Labor must certify that an employer seeking to use the H-2A program to bring nonimmigrant foreign workers to the United States to perform agricultural work on a temporary basis has given preference to U.S. workers over foreign workers for the available positions, and that, to the extent foreign workers are employed, their employment will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. DOL engaged in a rulemaking process that culminated in the publication of regulations governing the H-2A program generally. For H-2A applications for jobs in sheepherding, goatherding and the open range production of livestock, however, DOL issued “special procedures” that were not subject to the rulemaking process. By issuing “special procedures” without first providing notice and an opportunity for interested parties to comment, defendants violated the APA.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the APA violation and to ensure that the H-2A program does not have an adverse effect on the employment opportunities, wages, and working conditions of workers in the United States. In February 2013, a federal district court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed. In June 2014, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had both Article III and prudential standing to pursue their claim because they were participants in the herding labor market and had been injured by the “special procedures.” The Court concluded that the DOL rules are “legislative” rules that set U.S. policy for ensuring that the admission of foreign herders does not adversely affect American workers. Given the nature of the rules, the Court held that DOL violated the APA by adopting the rules without notice and an opportunity for the public to comment. It found that the rules adversely affected herders by lowering wages and worsening working conditions, and it sent the case back to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy for the APA violation.

Briefing on an appropriate remedy is now underway on remand in the district court.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.