Manufacturers v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Presidential Proclamation 10052 suspended entry for certain foreign nationals seeking H-1B, H-2B, J, and L temporary nonimmigrant visas. The Proclamation stated that these workers threatened employment opportunities for United States workers during the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. The Department of State and Department of Homeland Security were responsible for implementing the restrictions, and the agencies had stopped or paused processing in affected categories.

The plaintiffs were the National Association of Manufacturers, the United States Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National Retail Federation, TechNet, and Intrax, Inc. The associations’ members included American businesses, while Intrax operated cultural exchange programs. The plaintiffs brought one claim arguing that the Proclamation exceeded the executive branch’s authority and a second claim under the Administrative Procedure Act concerning the defendant departments’ implementation of the Proclamation. They sought a preliminary injunction.

Standing and the Administrative Procedure Act

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It found that declarations in the record described specific harms to the associations, their members, and Intrax caused by the Proclamation. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ direct challenge to the President’s issuance of the Proclamation failed because the Proclamation was not a final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court explained that the direct challenge was not based on the theory that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation violated that Act.

The court did not address the plaintiffs’ separate claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. Because it found that the Proclamation’s issuance was contrary to law, the court concluded that the defendants’ enforcement and implementation of it were also unlawful.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before a final judgment. The plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, favorable balancing of the hardships, and that an injunction served the public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs met the merits requirement for several independent reasons. First, it held that Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act did not give the President unlimited power to set domestic employment policy merely because the policy affected immigration. The court characterized Proclamation 10052 as addressing a purely domestic economic issue rather than foreign affairs or national security.

Second, the court held that the Proclamation likely unlawfully nullified portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Instead of adding restrictions where the statute was silent, the Proclamation eliminated entire statutory visa categories, including H-1B, H-2B, L-1, and J-1 visas, at least through the end of 2020 and potentially longer. The court concluded that Section 1182(f) did not authorize the President to override Congress’s detailed choices governing those visa programs.

Third, the court found the Proclamation’s factual finding insufficient as a matter of law and contradicted by the record. The Proclamation asserted that the entry of covered workers threatened American employment, but the court found no supporting evaluation or report from the President or the Secretaries of Labor and Homeland Security. The court also found a mismatch between pandemic-related unemployment and the categories of workers barred, including evidence that vacancies remained in areas requiring highly skilled workers.

Irreparable Harm, Equities, and Public Interest

The court found that the plaintiffs and their members were likely to suffer harm that could not be adequately remedied with money. The identified harms included disruption of business operations, interference with existing employees, closure of open positions, furloughs or layoffs, pay cuts, loss of prospective customers, shutdowns of programs, inability to make capital investments, and possible cessation of some businesses or cultural programs.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from the pandemic or general visa-processing delays rather than Proclamation 10052. It also rejected the argument that possible national-interest exceptions eliminated the plaintiffs’ immediate harm. The court found that seeking an exception was costly and that exceptions potentially available to some applicants did not eliminate the effects of the broader policy.

Because the government was a party, the court considered the balance of hardships and public interest together. It found that the public interest favored respecting Congress’s immigration judgments on domestic issues and stopping a major policy change that negatively affected the plaintiffs and their members. The court exercised its discretion not to require a bond because no bond was requested, a significant public interest was involved, and the record did not show that the defendants would suffer damages from the injunction.

Disposition and Scope of Relief

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The injunction took effect immediately and was to remain in effect pending trial or further order of the court. It barred the defendants, their agents, employees, and persons acting with them from implementing, enforcing, or otherwise carrying out Section 2 of Proclamation 10052 against the plaintiffs and, for the association plaintiffs, their members.

It also barred actions causing the non-processing or non-issuance of H-, J-, and L-category visa applications or petitions that would have been eligible for processing and issuance but for Proclamation 10052, with respect to the plaintiffs and the association plaintiffs’ members. The court expressly stated that it was not granting a nationwide injunction.