## Facts

- A labor union representing U.S. masonry and construction workers, a local union, and individual members challenged an INS internal Operations Instruction permitting certain foreign workers to enter under B-1 “temporary visitor for business” visas.
- Plaintiffs alleged the guidance was used to admit foreign workers to perform construction-related work that should have required H-2 classification and labor certification under the INA.
- Plaintiffs asserted competitive injury to U.S. workers, including displacement, depressed wages, and harm to collective bargaining caused by increased competition from workers admitted under B-1.
- The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief against continued application of the Operations Instruction.
- The district court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, including lack of standing and mootness.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the court of appeals addressed threshold justiciability and jurisdiction rather than the merits of whether the guidance violated the INA.

## Issues

1. Whether unions and affected worker-members alleged a sufficiently concrete injury, fairly traceable to the challenged INS guidance, that would likely be redressed by declaratory or injunctive relief.
2. Whether the controversy was moot because particular visa episodes had ended.
3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the INS Operations Instruction.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held plaintiffs had Article III standing based on alleged competitive harm to members’ employment opportunities and working conditions.
- The court held the alleged injuries were fairly traceable to the Operations Instruction because it authorized or encouraged use of B-1 visas in circumstances claimed to increase labor competition.
- The court held the requested relief could likely redress the injuries by curtailing the challenged practice.
- The court rejected mootness because the challenge targeted an ongoing, generally applicable policy rather than a completed, isolated agency action.
- The court concluded the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation (fair traceability), and redressability; competitive labor-market injuries may satisfy injury in fact when tied to an agency policy affecting employment opportunities.
- A challenge to an ongoing agency policy is not rendered moot solely because specific applications of that policy have concluded, where the policy is continuing and capable of recurring in practice.
- Declaratory and injunctive relief may satisfy redressability when it would likely constrain agency application of the challenged policy and thereby mitigate the alleged competitive harms.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals allowed the unions’ challenge to proceed by holding that alleged competitive harms from an ongoing INS B-1 visa policy were sufficient for standing, that the dispute was not moot, and that the district court could hear the case on remand.


Int'l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen v. Meese, 761 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir. 1985)