7th Circuit shoots down Homeland Security decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Department of Homeland Security wrongly second-guessed the federal labor department in denying an application by a mental health residential care group – Hoosier Care Inc. – asking for labor certification and immigrant visas for two Filipinos, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

An eight-page opinion in Hoosier Care Inc. v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., comes from a decision last year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Hoosier Care, a non-profit organization that operates in both Illinois and Indiana, wanted to hire two Filipinos without American citizenship to be staff members to help take care of disabled adults and children at one of its Illinois facilities. They were to be "developmental disability specialists," the suit says. In order to hire them, the company had to first receive alien labor certification before being able to obtain immigrant visas for the pair.

The Department of Labor granted the certification after receiving information that the two met education requirements, but the Homeland Security ;s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency later rejected the petition to classify the two eligible for "employer-based" immigration status. An Illinois District Court ruled against Hoosier Care in its challenge of the decision.

However, the three judge panel – Judges Richard Posner, Ilana Rovner and Diane Sykes – reversed the decision and remanded it to the Department of Homeland Security for further proceedings, essentially arguing that the labor department has jurisdiction here and not homeland security officials.

In the decision, Judge Posner wrote, "But the Department of Homeland Security does not argue that in conducting such and investigation in this case it was simply doing the Labor Department 's work for it. If it wants to do that, it will have to change its regulations and probably also persuade Congress to change the statute."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.