Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    19-4143 - Opn Docket No. 19-4143-CV

    Uploaded by

    FedSmith Inc.
    This is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. It upholds a lower court decision refusing to issue an injunction against the implementation of Executive Orders issued by President Trump on several federal labor and employee relations issues.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    19-4143 - Opn Docket No. 19-4143-CV

    Uploaded by

    FedSmith Inc.
    5K views6 pages
    This is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. It upholds a lower court decision refusing to issue an injunction against the implementation of Executive Orders issued by President Trump on several federal labor and employee relations issues.

    Original Title

    19-4143_opn Docket No. 19-4143-CV

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. It upholds a lower court decision refusing to issue an injunction against the implementation of Executive Orders issued by President Trump on several federal labor and employee relations issues.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    5K views6 pages

    19-4143 - Opn Docket No. 19-4143-CV

    Uploaded by

    FedSmith Inc.
    This is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. It upholds a lower court decision refusing to issue an injunction against the implementation of Executive Orders issued by President Trump on several federal labor and employee relations issues.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    19-4143-cv

    SEIU Local 200 v. Trump

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    August Term 2019

    (Argued: August 25, 2020 Decided: September 16,2020)

    Docket No. 19-4143-cv

    SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 200 UNITED, SERVICE


    EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,

    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

    v.

    DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MICHAEL J.


    RIGAS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
    UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

    Defendants-Appellees. *

    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

    1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Director of the


    Office of Personnel Management Michael J. Rigas is substituted for former Director Dale
    Cabaniss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth
    above.
    Before:
    WINTER, RAGGI, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

    Appeal from a decision and order of the United States District Court

    for the Western District of New York (Elizabeth A. Wolford, J.) denying

    plaintiffs-appellants' request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the

    implementation of three Executive Orders relating to federal labor-management

    relations. Plaintiffs-appellants contend that the district court erred when it

    concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their substantive

    Administrative Procedure Act claim and that their procedural Administrative

    Procedure Act claim was not likely to succeed on the merits.

    AFFIRMED.

    DANIELLE LEONARD, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San


    Francisco, California (Barbara J. Chisholm,
    Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California;
    Nicole G. Berner and Claire Prestel, Service
    Employees International Union, Washington,
    D.C.; Catherine Creighton, Creighton, Johnsen &
    Giroux, Buffalo, New York; and Mairead E.
    Connor, Law Offices of Mairead E. Connor,
    PLLC, Syracuse, New York, on the brief), for
    Plaintiffs-Appellants.

    2
    JOSEPH F. BUSA, Attorney (Mark B. Stern, Attorney, on
    the brief), for Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
    Attorney General, Civil Division, United States
    Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and
    James P. Kennedy, Jr., United States Attorney for
    the Western District of New York, Buffalo, New
    York, for Defendants-Appellees.

    PER CURIAM:

    Plaintiffs-appellants Service Employees International Union Local

    200 United and Service Employees International Union (together, the "Unions")

    appeal from a decision and order of the District Court for the Western District of

    New York issued December 10, 2019, denying their request for a preliminary

    injunction to enjoin defendants-appellees President Donald J. Trump and

    Michael J. Rigas, Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management

    ("OPM"), from implementing certain Executive Orders (the "Orders") relating to

    federal labor-management relations. The Unions alleged violations of the

    Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (the "APA") and the Civil

    Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (the "CSRA"). On appeal, the Unions

    argue that the district court erred when it concluded that (1) it lacked jurisdiction

    3
    over their substantive APA claim; and (2) their procedural APA claim was not

    likely to succeed on the merits. We affirm.

    The Orders were issued by President Trump in May 2018 and

    related Guidances issued by OPM in July 2018. 1 Broadly speaking, the Orders

    and Guidances address collective bargaining, work time for representational

    activities, and discipline and discharge.

    On August 13, 2019, the Unions filed their complaint below

    challenging the Orders and Guidances on several grounds, including that they

    violated procedural and substantive provisions of the APA, and seeking

    declaratory and injunctive relief. The Unions moved for a preliminary injunction

    on September 12, 2019, and a temporary restraining order on September 26, 2019.

    The district court denied the Unions' motion for a temporary restraining order on

    October 3, 2019, and denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on

    December 10, 2019. With respect to the preliminary injunction, the district court

    1 The three Orders are EO No. 13,836: Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-
    Reducing Approaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining, EO No. 13,837: Ensuring
    Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency in Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use, and
    EO No. 13,839: Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures
    Consistent with Merit System Principles. The three Guidances are Guidance for
    Implementation of Executive Order 13,836, Guidance for Implementation of Executive
    Order 13,837, and Guidance for Implementation of Executive Order 13,839.

    4
    held that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Unions' substantive

    APA claim; and (2) the Unions' procedural APA claim was unlikely to succeed

    on the merits because the Guidances were not subject to notice-and-comment

    rulemaking as the Orders were "presumptively legally binding" and the

    Guidances "did nothing more than summarize the legally binding . . . Orders." S.

    App'x at 17–18. This appeal followed.

    We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for

    abuse of discretion. See N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, 883 F.3d

    32, 36 (2d Cir. 2018). "A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) bases its

    decision on an error of law or uses the wrong legal standard; (2) bases its

    decision on a clearly erroneous factual finding; or (3) reaches a conclusion that,

    though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual

    finding, cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Klipsch

    Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 880 F.3d 620, 627 (2d Cir. 2018). We review the

    district court's legal conclusion as to whether subject matter jurisdiction exists de

    novo and factual findings in connection with that determination for clear error.

    See Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 398 (2d Cir. 2017).

    5
    After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we

    affirm for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its carefully

    reasoned December 10, 2019 decision and order. 2

    CONCLUSION

    Accordingly, the decision and order of the district court is

    AFFIRMED.

    2 These same Orders and Guidances were recently challenged in the D.C. District
    Court, with the D.C. Circuit Court holding that the existence of administrative review
    by the Authority precluded district court jurisdiction. See Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps.,
    AFL-CIO v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.D.C. 2018), rev'd and vacated, 929 F.3d 748, 754
    (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    6

    You might also like