330 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1964), 17976, Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy

Docket Nº17976.
Citation330 F.2d 217
Party NameTEXAS STATE AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v. Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, and Raymond F.Farrell, Commissioner of the United States Immigration and NaturalizationService, et al., Appellees.
Case DateFebruary 06, 1964
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Page 217

330 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1964)

TEXAS STATE AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants,

v.

Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, and Raymond F.Farrell, Commissioner of the United States Immigration and NaturalizationService, et al., Appellees.

No. 17976.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

February 6, 1964

Argued Dec. 17, 1963.

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 18, 1964.

As Amended March 23, 1964.

Mr. Charles J. Morris, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, Dallas, Tex., pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. J. Albert Woll, Washington, D.C., and L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Robert C. Mayer, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

Mr. Gil Zimmerman, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U.S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and David Epstein, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellees Kennedy and Farrell.

Mr. Michael J. Shea, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Martin L. Friedman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee Thomas Alvarado (Lugo), and certain other appellees.

Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and MCGOWAN, Circuit Judges.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This litigation was brought in the District Court by a labor organization active in the Texas counties bordering on Mexico, and by individual workers employed in those counties, to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief against the United States immigration authorities, seeking

Page 218

to cause the expulsion or exclusion of a certain group of Mexican aliens permitted by those authorities to enter Texas, and to obtain and keep jobs there, in alleged violation of law. This relief would free the plaintiffs-appellants from the competition offered in the local labor market by these aliens. The Mexicans in question are individuals who have been given by the Federal authorities (defendants-appellees) the status of lawfully admitted 'immigrants, ' entitled to permanent residence in this country. They have also been permitted by the defendants-appellees to become so-called 'alien commuters, ' i.e., persons who continue to maintain their homes in Mexico, but who are allowed to cross the border at frequent intervals to pursue their established employment in the United States. This permitted practice has prevailed for some decades, and many thousands of these aliens are said to be holding jobs in the United States, without either residing here or spending any major part of their earnings here. 1

The plaintiff labor organization sued in a representative capacity on behalf of its members and its affiliated labor groups. In addition, some 188 individuals alleging economic detriment from the activities of the alien commuters sued as plaintiffs on their own behalf and as representatives of others similarly situated. The sole defendants named in the complaint were the two principal Government officials charged with the administration and enforcement of the immigration laws. Some 19 alien commuters intervened as defendants, individually and as representatives of a class. Motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties, and all the defendants moved to dismiss. The motions to dismiss were granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied. This appeal followed.

Much of the argument addressed to us relates to the merits of the controversy, namely, whether 'alien commuters' are entitled under the law to enjoy the privileges which have long been extended to them. 2 But we do not think it is either necessary or proper for us to express a view on this question.

Assuming the truth of the crucial allegations of the complaint brought by plaintiffs-appellants-- namely, that expulsion or exclusion of the alien commuters would result in many jobs becoming available to the individual plaintiffs, or would at least reduce the competition faced by them in seeking employment, that the union is handicapped in its activities by the presence of the alien commuters, and that the latter are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • 386 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1967), 23916, Cobb v. Murrell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • November 27, 1967
    ...their businesses.' 350 F.2d at 707. See also the following relevant cases: Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 1964, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 330 F.2d 217, cert. denied 1964, 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36; Young Americans for Freedom, Inc. v. Rusk, 1962, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 303 F.2d 771......
  • 350 F.2d 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965), 18946, Fugazy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. C. A. B.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 18, 1965
    ...contention was expressed by this court in an analogous situation in the case of Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 330 F.2d 217, 219 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36 (1964): 'Absent such a congressional grant, mere economic competition ma......
  • 481 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 72-1178, Bustos v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 16, 1973
    ...daily from seasonal commuters. [24] E. g., 433 F.2d at 78-79. [25] See Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 330 F.2d 217, 219, cert. den. 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36 [26] Also involved are the Governments of Canada and Mexico. The Secretary of State, in an......
  • 274 F.Supp. 624 (D.D.C. 1967), Civ. A. 1083-66, Investment Co. Institute v. Camp
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • September 27, 1967
    ...Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940); Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 330 F.2d 217, 218 (1964); Benson v. Schofield, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 424, 236 F.2d 719 (1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 976, 77 S.Ct. 363, 1 L.Ed.2d 324 (year); Kansas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • 386 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1967), 23916, Cobb v. Murrell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    • November 27, 1967
    ...their businesses.' 350 F.2d at 707. See also the following relevant cases: Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 1964, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 330 F.2d 217, cert. denied 1964, 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36; Young Americans for Freedom, Inc. v. Rusk, 1962, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 303 F.2d 771......
  • 350 F.2d 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965), 18946, Fugazy Travel Bureau, Inc. v. C. A. B.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 18, 1965
    ...contention was expressed by this court in an analogous situation in the case of Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 330 F.2d 217, 219 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36 (1964): 'Absent such a congressional grant, mere economic competition ma......
  • 481 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1973), 72-1178, Bustos v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 16, 1973
    ...daily from seasonal commuters. [24] E. g., 433 F.2d at 78-79. [25] See Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 330 F.2d 217, 219, cert. den. 379 U.S. 826, 85 S.Ct. 54, 13 L.Ed.2d 36 [26] Also involved are the Governments of Canada and Mexico. The Secretary of State, in an......
  • 274 F.Supp. 624 (D.D.C. 1967), Civ. A. 1083-66, Investment Co. Institute v. Camp
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • September 27, 1967
    ...Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 60 S.Ct. 869, 84 L.Ed. 1108 (1940); Texas State AFL-CIO v. Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 330 F.2d 217, 218 (1964); Benson v. Schofield, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 424, 236 F.2d 719 (1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 976, 77 S.Ct. 363, 1 L.Ed.2d 324 (year); Kansas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results