Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/9651427/Lawsuit-Challenging-Immigration-Checks
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 05:57:47+00:00

Document:
stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.’” Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct.
within the Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with the Social Security Administration.
tity to participate in a pilot program.” IIRIRA § 402(a).
bition against requiring “any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program” such as E-Verify.
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action and the parties thereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act); and 28 U.S.C.
cedure provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
10. Venue lies in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
organizations of every size and in every industry sector and geographical region of the United States.
activities include government representation, legal advocacy, education and workforce development.
Fairfax Drive, 9th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
address is 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 750, Washington, District of Columbia 20005.
the three-element test enunciated in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S.
tary is sued in his official capacity only.
trict of Columbia 20405. Mr. Matera is sued in his official capacity only.
United States of America to be named as a party defendant.
tionality Act provides a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of immigration into the United States.
See Immigration and Nationality Act, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C.
§ 101(a)(1), 100 Stat. 3359, 3360 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)).
ment-based system for employers to verify that individuals are authorized to work in the United States.
ment ends, whichever is later.
congressional oversight. See IRCA § 101(a)(1), 100 Stat. at 3363 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C.
son must record, a verification code.” § 1324a(d)(3)(D)(ii).
in a pilot program.” IIRIRA § 402(a).
contract.” Exec. Order No. 13,465 § 3, 73 Fed. Reg. 33,285, 33,286 (June 11, 2008) (amending Exec.
Order No. 12,989 § 5) (emphasis added).
by all executive agencies.” 48 C.F.R. § 1.101.
Exec. Order No. 13,465 § 1(b), 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,285.
tion against requiring “any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program” such as E-Verify.
tion in E-Verify. See Proposed Employment Eligibility Verification Rule (“Proposed Rule”), 73 Fed.
Reg. 33,374 (June 12, 2008). The Proposed Rule was signed by Mr. Matera. See id. at 33,380.
ment’s supply chain.” Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,378.
for minor modifications.” Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,375.
(proposed 48 C.F.R. § 22.1802(b)(1)(ii)).
(proposed 48 C.F.R. § 22.1802(b)(2)).
COTS subcontracts over $3,000 in value. Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,381 (proposed 48 C.F.R.
73 Fed. Reg. at 33,377.
compliance with Federal contracting requirements.” Id. at 33,375.
Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,377.
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, as amended (8 U.S.C. § 1324a note).” Rev.
MOU art. I, ¶ 2.
Verification System Under Executive Order 12989 (“E-Verify Designation Notice”), 73 Fed. Reg.
perform work within the United States on the Federal contract.” E-Verify Designation Notice, 73 Fed.
engaged in the performance of work in the United States under contracts with the Federal Government.
[IIRIRA] that participation in E-Verify be ‘voluntary.’” Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,655.
tor. See Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,656.
Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,654. The dollar threshold for subcontracts, however, was kept at $3,000.
See Final Rule 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,676.
new hires. Instead, these entities need only verify employees assigned to a covered federal contract.
See Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,704 (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. § 22.1802(b)).
$188,138,945—some $126,508,205 greater than the cost estimated in the Proposed Rule ($61,630,740).
Compare Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,702, with Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,377.
the regulation.” Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,686.
set forth in Executive Order 13,465 and the Final Rule within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702.
been forced to dedicate significant resources to prepare for this eventuality.
tive members to electronically “reverify” all of their existing employees hired after November 6, 1986.
cally reverified using E-Verify. Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,704 (to be codified at 48 C.F.R.
contract that is required to include the clause prescribed at [48 C.F.R. §] 22.1803.” Final Rule, 73 Fed.
hired after November 6, 1986.
against on the basis of race and/or national origin.
tion that the requirements imposed by Executive Order 13,465 and the Final Rule are invalid.
58. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
tion” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 704.
quire any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program” such as E-Verify. IIRIRA § 402(a).
in a pilot program” such as E-Verify. IIRIRA § 402(a).
63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
69. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
eral Government with an economical and efficient” procurement system. 40 U.S.C. §§ 101, 121(a).
74. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
gram such as E-Verify to electronically reverify existing employees).
are assigned to covered contracts and subcontracts.
electronic-reverification-of-existing-employees requirement is unlawful and must be set aside.
80. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
83. The Constitution of the United States vests “[a]ll legislative Powers” in Congress. U.S.
imposed by Executive Order 13,465 and the Final Rule are illegal and must be set aside.
85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 704.
such requirements impracticable.” § 418b(d)(1).
meaning of the Procurement Policy Act.
in the Federal Register impracticable.
92. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-57.
ject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 611.
type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.” § 604(a)(4).
Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 67,687.
imposed by Executive Order 13,465.
is unlawful and must be set aside.
F. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Transcript of March 7, 2012 Responsible Vendor Hearing for L. D'Agostini & Sons, Inc.

References: v. 
 § 402
 § 1651
 § 2201
 § 1331
 § 1391
 v. 

§ 101
 § 1324
 § 101
 § 1324
 § 402
 § 3
 § 5
 § 1
 § 1
 § 22
 § 22
 § 1324
 § 22
 § 702
 § 704
 § 402
 § 402
 § 704
 § 418
 § 611
 § 604