UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PURDUE UNIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. Action No. 20-3006 (EGS) EUGENE SCALIA, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Labor, et al., Defendants. STELLAR IT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. Action No. 20-3175 (EGS) EUGENE SCALIA, in his official capacity as Secretary, Department of Labor, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are a group of academic institutions and companies in the healthcare, immigration, and technology-related sectors that employ foreign nationals throughout the United States. See Pls.’ Mem. Points Authorities Supp. Mot. Prelim. Inj. APA Section 705 Stay (“Purdue Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 6 at 11, Purdue Univ. v. Scalia, No. 20-cv-3006 (EGS) (Oct. 23, 2020); Pls.’ Mot. Prelim. Inj. (“Stellar IT Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No. 7-1 at 34-35, Stellar IT, Inc. v. Scalia, No. 20-cv-3175 (EGS) (Nov. 9, 2020). 1 Plaintiffs challenge a United States Department of Labor (“DOL” or “the Department”) interim final rule entitled “Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States,” 85 Fed. Reg. 63,872 (Oct. 8, 2020) (“IFR”). See Purdue Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 6 at 11-12; Stellar IT Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 7-1 at 10-11. The IFR updated the computation of prevailing wage levels set for certain foreign labor certification programs “to better reflect the actual wages earned by U.S. workers similarly employed to foreign workers,” 85 Fed. Reg. at 63,872, thereby increasing the prevailing wage rates for certain occupations “by as much as forty or fifty percent,” Stellar IT Pls.’ Reply, ECF No. 11 at 1, Stellar IT, Inc. v. Scalia, No. 20-cv-3175 (EGS) (Nov. 16, 2020). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in setting the higher wage rates because the DOL did not provide advance notice and comment prior to promulgating the IFR. See Purdue Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 6 at 11-12; Stellar IT Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 7 at 10-11. Pending before the Court are the Purdue Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Purdue Defendants’ cross-motion 1 When citing electronic filings throughout this Opinion, the Court cites to the ECF page number, not the page number of the filed document. 2 for partial summary judgment, as well as the Stellar IT Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Stellar IT Defendants’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motions, the responses and replies thereto, the applicable law, the IFR and materials cited therein, and the entire record, the Court GRANTS the Purdue Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 6, and the Stellar IT Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 7. I. Background A. Statutory And Regulatory Background The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., allows for U.S. employers to apply for visas for foreign workers to come to the United States either as nonimmigrants for temporary employment under the H-1B visa classification, or as immigrants to work on a permanent basis. The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals