UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
METROPOLI TAN WASHI NGTON )
CHAPTER, )
ASSOCI ATED BUI LDERS AND )
CONTRACTORS, I NC. , et al . )
)
Pl ai nt i f f s, )
)
v. )
) Ci v. Act i on No. 12- 853 ( EGS)
DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A, )
)
and )
)
VI NCENT C. GRAY, i n hi s )
of f i ci al capaci t y as Mayor )
of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, )
)
Def endant s. )
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I n 1984, t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a ( her ei naf t er Di st r i ct )
enact ed t he Fi r st Sour ce Empl oyment Agr eement Act ( her ei naf t er
Fi r st Sour ce Act or Act ) , a r esi dent i al pr ef er ence st at ut e
f or t he const r uct i on i ndust r y mandat i ng t hat cer t ai n per cent ages
of const r uct i on j obs on pr oj ect s f unded i n whol e or i n par t , or
admi ni st er ed by t he ci t y, be f i l l ed by Di st r i ct r esi dent s. The
Act was amended i n 2011 by t he Wor kf or ce I nt er medi ar y
Est abl i shment and Ref or mof Fi r st Sour ce Amendment Act of 2011,
whi ch was si gned by Mayor Vi ncent C. Gr ay and passi vel y appr oved
by Congr ess. The Fi r st Sour ce Act , bot h as enact ed and amended,
i s i nt ended t o addr ess t he uni que posi t i on i n whi ch t he Di st r i ct
2

f i nds i t sel f as t he onl y j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he count r y t hat i s
l egal l y bar r ed f r omi mposi ng a commut er t ax on non- r esi dent s who
come i nt o t he ci t y t o wor k. Near l y 70 per cent of j obs i n t he
Di st r i ct ar e hel d by non- r esi dent s and t hi s i nabi l i t y t o l evy a
commut er t ax al l egedl y r esul t s i n a si gni f i cant f i nanci al
shor t f al l f or t he Di st r i ct , especi al l y because t he unempl oyment
r at e i n t he Di st r i ct i s much hi gher t han i n sur r oundi ng
j ur i sdi ct i ons. Pl ai nt i f f s, a non- pr of i t commer ci al
or gani zat i on, t wo const r uct i on compani es, and f our i ndi vi dual s
who l i ve i n Mar yl and and Vi r gi ni a chal l enge t he l aw as enact ed
and amended as a vi ol at i on of t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s. They
ar gue t hat f or t he pur poses of j udi ci al r evi ew of t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act , t he Di st r i ct must be t r eat ed as i f i t i s a st at e.
They cont end t hat t r eat i ng t he Di st r i ct as a st at e woul d r ender
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act unconst i t ut i onal .
Thi s case t hus r epr esent s somet hi ng of a t wi st i n t he l ong
l i ne of cases i n whi ch t he Di st r i ct has r epeat edl y conf r ont ed
t he uncont r over t ed f act t hat i t s uni que const i t ut i onal st at us
pr event s i t f r omenj oyi ng benef i t s st at es t ake f or gr ant ed. For
i nst ance, i n t hi s nascent cent ur y al one, t he Di st r i ct has been
t ol d ( yet agai n) t hat i t s ci t i zens cannot el ect r epr esent at i ves
wi t h vot i ng r i ght s t o t he Congr ess of t he Uni t ed St at es, Adams
v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 ( D. D. C. 2000) ; cannot l evy a
commut er t ax, Banner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1 ( D. D. C.
3

2004) ; and cannot cont r ol expendi t ur es of l ocal l y der i ved f unds,
Council of the District of Columbia v. Gray, No. 14- 655, 2014
U. S. Di st . LEXI S 68055 ( D. D. C. May 19, 2014) . Fur t her , t he
Di st r i ct i s al so pr ohi bi t ed f r om, inter alia, pr osecut i ng i t s
own cr i mes, D. C. Code 23- 101( c) ; enact i ng l egi sl at i on wi t hout
Congr essi onal appr oval , D. C. Code 1- 204. 04( e) ; 1-
206. 02( c) ( 1) ; r egul at i ng i t s own cour t s or appoi nt i ng i t s own
j udges, D. C. Code 1- 204. 33( a) ; and enact i ng zoni ng
r egul at i ons wi t hout submi ssi on t o t he Nat i onal Capi t al Pl anni ng
Commi ssi on f or r evi ew, D. C. Code 6- 641. 05. These r est r i ct i ons
appl y t o t he Di st r i ct f or t he pr eci se r eason t hat i t i s not a
st at e, but r at her an except i onal const i t ut i onal cr eat i on, over
whi ch Congr ess r et ai ns ul t i mat e l egi sl at i ve aut hor i t y.
Even when t he Di st r i ct f i nal l y gai ned some measur e of
aut onomy wi t h t he passage of t he Home Rul e Act i n 1973, t he
ext ent of home r ul e was l i mi t ed; t he gr ant of l egi sl at i ve
aut hor i t y t o t he Di st r i ct i n t he Home Rul e Act i s cabi ned by t he
power of Congr ess t o det er mi ne what i s i n t he best i nt er est of
t he Di st r i ct and i t s r esi dent s. I n pr act i ce, si nce t he
enact ment of t he Home Rul e Act , t hi s l i mi t ed abi l i t y t o
l egi sl at e has of t en meant t hat t he pr er ogat i ves of t he
Di st r i ct s l ocal l y el ect ed r epr esent at i ves ar e subor di nat e t o
t hose of Congr ess. Thi s year al one, Congr ess has bl ocked t he
Di st r i ct s abi l i t y t o decr i mi nal i ze mar i j uana possessi on, spend
4

i t s own money on abor t i ons f or poor r esi dent s, and has cut f unds
f or D. C. pol i ce of f i cer s t o dr i ve t hei r pol i ce cr ui ser s t o and
f r omt hei r homes i f t hey l i ve out si de t he Di st r i ct by addi ng
r i der s t o t he Congr essi onal appr opr i at i ons bi l l .
1
These act i ons
by Congr ess ar e wi del y under st ood as f ur t her set backs f or home
r ul e i n t he Di st r i ct .
The Cour t i s awar e t hat si mi l ar st at e st at ut es, when
chal l enged under t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he
Const i t ut i on, have al l been st r uck down as unconst i t ut i onal .
However , t he Di st r i ct , unl i ke ever y ot her j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he
count r y t hat i mposes an i ncome t ax on i t s own r esi dent s, i s
bar r ed by t he Home Rul e Act f r oml evyi ng a commut er t ax on
i ncome ear ned by non- r esi dent s wor ki ng her e. Whi l e t hat f act
al one woul d r esul t i n a st r uct ur al i mbal ance i n any ci t y, t he
magni t ude of t he pr obl emi s unique i n t he Di st r i ct , wher e
appr oxi mat el y 70 per cent of j obs ar e hel d by non- r esi dent s.
Thi s st r uct ur al i mbal ance i s exacer bat ed by t he f act t hat t he
unempl oyment r at e i n t he Di st r i ct i s ext r emel y hi gh hi gher
t han bot h t he nat i onal aver age and t hat of t he ent i r e Washi ngt on
met r opol i t an ar ea t hus r equi r i ng t he ci t y t o spend an

1
See Aar on C. Davi s, House Republicans block funding for D.C.
marijuana decriminalization, WASHI NGTON POST, J une 25, 2014,
ht t p: / / www. washi ngt onpost . com/ l ocal / dc- pol i t i cs/ house-
r epubl i cans- bl ock- f undi ng- f or - dc- mar i j uana-
decr i mi nal i zat i on/ 2014/ 06/ 25/ d6854ba8- f c6e- 11e3- 8176-
f 2c941cf 35f 1_st or y. ht ml ( l ast accessed J ul y 11, 2014) .
5

i nor di nat e amount of i t s r esour ces on soci al wel f ar e ser vi ces i n
an at t empt t o ai d i t s un- and under - empl oyed popul at i on.
These ci r cumst ances put t he Di st r i ct i n a di f f er ent
posi t i on t han ot her ci t i es t hat have t r i ed t o enact si mi l ar
r esi dence pr ef er ence l egi sl at i on. No ot her j ur i sdi ct i on can l ay
cl ai mt o bei ng a uni que const i t ut i onal communi t y, and t hus, no
ot her j ur i sdi ct i on, by oper at i on of our ver y const i t ut i onal
st r uct ur e, coul d possi bl y f ace t he chal l enges f aced by t he
Di st r i ct . Never t hel ess, t he Di st r i ct has not pr ovi ded any
compet ent evi dence t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , as enact ed and
amended, i s a nar r owl y t ai l or ed means t o addr ess t hi s uni que
evi l . Thus, havi ng car ef ul l y consi der ed t he Def endant s mot i on
t o di smi ss, t he r esponse and r epl y t her et o, t he suppl ement al
br i ef i ng, t he appl i cabl e l aw, t he or al ar gument , and t he r ecor d
as a whol e, Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss i s GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
I. Background
I n 1984, t he Di st r i ct enact ed t he Fi r st Sour ce Empl oyment
Agr eement Act t o pr ovi de empl oyment oppor t uni t i es i n ent r y-
l evel posi t i ons i n Di st r i ct of Col umbi a gover nment - assi st ed
pr oj ect s f or unempl oyed r esi dent s. 31 D. C. Reg. 2545 ( May 25,
1984) . I n 2011, t he Counci l of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a
unani mousl y amended t he Wor kf or ce I nt er medi ar y Est abl i shment and
Ref or mof Fi r st Sour ce Amendment Act of 2011 ( her ei naf t er
6

Amended Act ) , whi ch became ef f ect i ve i n 2012. The l aw, as
enact ed and amended, was t o count er act t he ef f ect s of t he
Di st r i ct s Congr essi onal l y- i mposed ban on t axi ng any of t he
i ncome t hat l eaves t he ci t y, whi ch r esul t s i n $1 bi l l i on t o $2
bi l l i on a year i n l ost r evenue. Counci l of t he Di st . of
Col umbi a, Comm. on Hous. and Wor kf or ce Dev. , Wor kf or ce
I nt er medi ar y Est abl i shment and Ref or mof Fi r st Sour ce Amendment
Act of 2011, B19- 50, Oct . 14, 2011, at 3, available at
ht t p: / / dccl i ms1. dccounci l . us/ i mages/ 00001/ 20120130131015. pdf
( l ast accessed J ul . 4, 2014) ( her ei naf t er Commi t t ee Repor t ) .
The Act i s admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Depar t ment
of Empl oyment Ser vi ces ( DOES) . Pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge f our
el ement s of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act as enact ed and amended: ( 1)
empl oyment agr eement s; ( 2) const r uct i on cont r act s; ( 3) t ar get ed-
hi r i ng cont r act s; and ( 4) r epor t i ng r equi r ement s. Compl . 9.
A. The First Source Employment Agreement Act of 1984
The Fi r st Sour ce Act r equi r es t hat al l benef i ci ar i es of a
gover nment - assi st ed pr oj ect or cont r act ent er i nt o an
Empl oyment Agr eement wi t h t he Di st r i ct t hat pr ovi des t hat t he
benef i ci ar y wi l l f i r st at t empt t o f i l l j obs and vacanci es f r om
t he Fi r st Sour ce Regi st er , on whi ch onl y Di st r i ct r esi dent s can
be l i st ed. Compl . 10- 12; see D. C. Code 2- 219. 03( a) ( 1) .
2


2
For t he pur poses of t hi s sect i on, al l ci t at i ons t o t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act ar e t o t he ver si on of t he Act i n ef f ect pr i or t o
7

Under t he Act , a benef i ci ar y i s def i ned as, inter alia, ( a) t he
si gnat or y of a cont r act execut ed by t he Mayor t hat i nvol ves
Di st r i ct f unds or f unds admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct , or ( b) a
benef i ci ar y of a Di st r i ct gover nment al act i on, i ncl udi ng
cont r act s, gr ant s, and l oans, t hat r esul t s i n a f i nanci al
benef i t of $100, 000 or mor e. Id. 2- 219. 01( 1) ( A) - ( 1) ( B) . A
gover nment - assi st ed pr oj ect i s one t hat i s f unded i n whol e or
i n par t by Di st r i ct f unds or f unds admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct ,
and f or whi ch t he Di st r i ct i s a si gnat or y t o any cont r act ual
agr eement . Id. 2- 219. 01( 5) .
The Act i mposes addi t i onal r equi r ement s on gover nment -
assi st ed pr oj ect s t hat cost mor e t han $100, 000. For t hese
pr oj ect s, 51 per cent of new empl oyees must be Di st r i ct r esi dent s
unl ess: ( 1) t he benef i ci ar y made a good f ai t h ef f or t t o compl y;
( 2) t he benef i ci ar y i s l ocat ed out si de of t he Washi ngt on
St andar d Met r opol i t an St at i st i cal Ar ea and none of t he cont r act
i s per f or med i nsi de t hat ar ea; ( 3) t he benef i ci ar y ent er s i nt o a
wor kf or ce- devel opment t r ai ni ng pr ogr amwi t h DOES; or ( 4) DOES
cer t i f i es t hat t her e ar e not enough qual i f i ed Di st r i ct r esi dent s
t o st af f t he pr oj ect . Compl . 19; D. C. Code 2- 219. 03( e) ( 3) .
Benef i ci ar i es t hat wi l l f ul l y br each an Empl oyment Agr eement may
be subj ect t o penal t i es, whi ch can i ncl ude monet ar y f i nes of 5%

Febr uar y 24, 2012, t he dat e whi ch t he amendment s t o t he Act
became ef f ect i ve.
8

of t he t ot al amount of t he di r ect and i ndi r ect l abor cost s of
t he cont r act . Compl . 13 ( quot i ng D. C. Code 2-
219. 03( e) ( 4) ) .
The Act al so pr ovi des t hat [ w] henever t he Mayor det er mi nes
t hat t he goal of i ncr easi ng empl oyment oppor t uni t i es f or
Di st r i ct r esi dent s may be bet t er ser ved by est abl i shi ng hi r i ng
goal s i n speci f i c j ob cat egor i es f or speci f i c gover nment -
assi st ed pr oj ect s, t he Mayor can pr ovi de f or i ncr eased hi r i ng
i n speci f i c cat egor i es by ent er i ng i nt o agr eement s wi t h
benef i ci ar i es or t hei r cont r act or s and subcont r act or s. D. C.
Code 2- 219. 03a( a) . A vi ol at i on of t hi s pr ovi si on of t he Act
i s t r eat ed i n t he same manner as a vi ol at i on of any ot her
r equi r ement of t he Act . Id.
The Act i ncl udes r epor t i ng r equi r ement s f or benef i ci ar i es.
Ever y mont h, benef i ci ar i es must submi t a cont r act compl i ance
r epor t t o DOES. Compl . 29. Thi s r epor t must i ncl ude, among
ot her t hi ngs, t he f ol l owi ng f or each cover ed pr oj ect : ( 1) t he
number of empl oyees needed; ( 2) t he number of cur r ent empl oyees
t r ansf er r ed; ( 3) t he number of j ob openi ngs cr eat ed; ( 4) t he
number of j ob openi ngs l i st ed wi t h DOES; ( 5) t he number of
Di st r i ct r esi dent s hi r ed dur i ng t he r epor t i ng per i od; ( 6) t he
cumul at i ve number of Di st r i ct r esi dent s hi r ed; ( 7) t he t ot al
number of empl oyees hi r ed dur i ng t he r epor t i ng per i od; ( 8) t he
cumul at i ve number of empl oyees hi r ed; and ( 9) t he name, soci al
9

secur i t y number , j ob t i t l e, hi r e dat e, r esi dence, and r ef er r al
sour ce i nf or mat i on f or al l new hi r es. D. C. Code 2- 219. 03( d) .
Upon submi ssi on of a f i nal r equest f or payment f r omt he
Di st r i ct , at t he concl usi on of a pr oj ect , t he benef i ci ar y must
document compl i ance wi t h t he Act or submi t a r equest f or a
wai ver , whi ch i ncl udes mat er i al demonst r at i ng good f ai t h ef f or t s
t o compl y, r ef er r al s, and j ob adver t i sement s l i st ed wi t h DOES
and ot her s. Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 2) . Fai l ur e t o submi t t he
r equi r ed dat a coul d r esul t i n t he i mposi t i on of penal t i es,
i ncl udi ng monet ar y f i nes of 5%of t he t ot al amount of t he
di r ect and i ndi r ect l abor cost s of t he cont r act . Id. 2-
219. 03( e) ( 4) .
B. The Workforce Intermediary Establishment and Reform of
First Source Amendment Act of 2011

The Counci l of t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a passed t he
Wor kf or ce I nt er medi ar y Est abl i shment and Ref or mof Fi r st Sour ce
Amendment Act of 2011 and i t was enact ed by Mayor Gr ay on
December 21, 2011. The Amended Act was t r ansmi t t ed t o Congr ess
f or r evi ew, and af t er t he expi r at i on of t he r equi si t e 30- day
passi ve r evi ew per i od wi t h no j oi nt r esol ut i on of di sappr oval by
Congr ess, i t became ef f ect i ve on Febr uar y 24, 2012. Def endant s
Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( her ei naf t er Def s. MTD) at 5- 6. The
Amended Act br oadens t he def i ni t i on of benef i ci ar y and
gover nment - assi st ed pr oj ect . Li ke t he pr evi ous ver si on of t he
10

Act , a benef i ci ar y i s def i ned as a si gnat or y t o a cont r act
execut ed by t he Mayor t hat i nvol ves D. C. f unds or f unds
admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct . D. C. Code 2- 219. 01( 1) ( A) .
3
For
a pr oj ect val ued i n excess of $300, 000, a benef i ci ar y i s
[ a] r eci pi ent of Di st r i ct gover nment economi c
devel opment act i on i ncl udi ng cont r act s, gr ant s, l oans,
t ax abat ement s, l and t r ansf er s f or r edevel opment , or
t ax i ncr ement f i nanci ng t hat r esul t s i n a f i nanci al
benef i t of $300, 000 or mor e f r oman agency, commi ssi on
i nst r ument al i t y, or ot her ent i t y of t he Di st r i ct
gover nment , i ncl udi ng a f i nanci al or banki ng
i nst i t ut i on whi ch ser ves as t he r eposi t or y f or $1
mi l l i on or mor e of Di st r i ct of Col umbi a f unds.

Id. 2- 219. 01( 1) ( B) . A gover nment - assi st ed pr oj ect or
cont r act i ncl udes
any const r uct i on or non- const r uct i on pr oj ect or
cont r act r ecei vi ng f unds or r esour ces f r omt he
Di st r i ct of Col umbi a, or f unds or r esour ces whi ch, i n
accor dance wi t h a f eder al gr ant or ot her wi se, t he
Di st r i ct of Col umbi a gover nment admi ni st er s, i ncl udi ng
cont r act s, gr ant s, l oans, t ax abat ement s or
exempt i ons, l and t r ansf er s, l and di sposi t i on and
devel opment agr eement s, t ax i ncr ement f i nanci ng, or
any combi nat i on t her eof , t hat i s val ued at $300, 000 or
mor e.

Id. 2- 219. 01( 5) .
The Amended Act al so expands t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he
Empl oyment Agr eement s t hat each benef i ci ar y must ent er i nt o wi t h
t he Di st r i ct . Under t he Amended Act , Empl oyment Agr eement s must
i ncl ude a pr ovi si on t hat t he f i r st sour ce f or f i ndi ng empl oyees

3
For t he pur poses of t hi s Sect i on, al l ci t at i ons ar e t o t he
Wor kf or ce I nt er medi ar y Est abl i shment and Ref or mof t he Fi r st
Sour ce Amendment Act of 2011, not t he or i gi nal ver si on of t he
Act passed i n 1984.
11

t o f i l l al l j obs cr eat ed by t he pr oj ect or cont r act ( or any
vacancy occur r i ng dur i ng t he j ob) wi l l be t he Fi r st Sour ce
Regi st er . Id. 2- 219. 03( a) ( 1) - ( a) ( 2) . The Empl oyment
Agr eement must al so i ncl ude a pr ovi si on t hat 51 per cent of
empl oyees hi r ed wi l l be Di st r i ct r esi dent s unl ess t he Mayor
wai ves t he r equi r ement . A wai ver i s avai l abl e i f ( 1) DOES has
cer t i f i ed t hat t he benef i ci ar y made a good f ai t h ef f or t t o
compl y; ( 2) t he benef i ci ar y i s l ocat ed out si de t he ar ea; none of
t he wor k i s per f or med i n t he ar ea; t he benef i ci ar y publ i shed
each avai l abl e j ob i n a ci t y- wi de newspaper f or 7 cal endar days
and DOES cer t i f i es t hat t her e ar e not enough appl i cant s f r omt he
Fi r st Sour ce Regi st er f or t he j ob, or t he el i gi bl e appl i cant s
ar e not avai l abl e f or par t - t i me wor k or do not have t he means t o
t r avel t o t he j ob si t e; or ( 3) t he benef i ci ar y ent er s i nt o
wor kf or ce devel opment t r ai ni ng or pl acement ar r angement wi t h
DOES. Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) - ( A) ( i i i ) .
DOES wi l l consi der a number of f act or s i n deci di ng whet her
a benef i ci ar y has made a good f ai t h ef f or t t o compl y suf f i ci ent
t o j ust i f y a wai ver , i ncl udi ng:
( i ) Whet her [ DOES] has cer t i f i ed t hat t her e i s an
i nsuf f i ci ent number of Di st r i ct r esi dent s i n t he l abor
mar ket who possess t he ski l l s r equi r ed t o f i l l t he
posi t i ons t hat wer e cr eat ed as a r esul t of t he pr oj ect
or cont r act ;

( i i ) Whet her t he benef i ci ar y post ed t he j obs on t he
[ DOES] j ob websi t e f or a mi ni mumof 10 cal endar days;

12

( i i i ) Whet her t he benef i ci ar y post ed each j ob openi ng
or par t - t i me wor k needed i n a Di st r i ct newspaper wi t h
ci t y- wi de ci r cul at i on f or a mi ni mumof 7 cal endar
days;

( i v) Whet her t he benef i ci ar y has subst ant i al l y
compl i ed wi t h t he r el evant mont hl y r epor t i ng
r equi r ement s set f or t h i n t hi s sect i on;

( v) Whet her t he benef i ci ar y has submi t t ed and
subst ant i al l y compl i ed wi t h i t s most r ecent empl oyment
pl an t hat has been appr oved by [ DOES] ; and

( vi ) Any addi t i onal document ed ef f or t s.

Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 3) ( B) . A benef i ci ar y can choose whet her t he
51 per cent Di st r i ct hi r i ng r equi r ement wi l l be cumul at i ve of al l
new hi r es, i ncl udi ng empl oyees hi r ed by subcont r act or s, or met
by each benef i ci ar y or i ndi vi dual subcont r act or . Id. 2-
219. 03( e) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) - ( B) ( i i ) . The t ar get ed hi r i ng and r epor t i ng
r equi r ement s have not changed i n t he Amended Act . Compl . 55,
60- 62.
For pr oj ect s or cont r act s r ecei vi ng $5 mi l l i on or mor e of
gover nment assi st ance, t he Amended Act i ncl udes sever al
addi t i onal hi r i ng, i ncl udi ng t hat Di st r i ct r esi dent s per f or m:
( 1) at l east 20 per cent of j our ney wor ker hour s by t r ade; ( 2) at
l east 60 per cent of appr ent i ce hour s by t r ade; ( 3) at l east 51
per cent of ski l l ed l abor er hour s by t r ade; and ( 4) at l east 70
per cent of common l abor er hour s. Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 1A) ( A) . I n
addi t i on, bi ds f or t hese pr oj ect s must i ncl ude an i ni t i al
empl oyment pl an out l i ni ng t he bi dder or of f er or s st r at egy t o
13

meet t he l ocal hi r i ng r equi r ement s as wel l as ot her i nf or mat i on
about heal t h and r et i r ement pl ans, ongoi ng ef f or t s t o hi r e
Di st r i ct r esi dent s, and past compl i ance wi t h t he Act . Id. 2-
219. 03( e) ( 1A) ( F) ( i ) . The wi nni ng bi dder must al so submi t a
r evi sed empl oyment pl an f or appr oval pr i or t o t he commencement
of wor k. Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 1A) ( F) ( i i ) .
The Amended Act cal l s f or t he i mposi t i on of har sher
penal t i es f or noncompl i ance. I n addi t i on t o a penal t y equal t o
5 per cent of t he di r ect or i ndi r ect l abor cost s f or t he pr oj ect
or cont r act f or wi l l f ul br each of t he empl oyment agr eement , id.
2- 219. 03( e) ( 4) ( A) , f ai l ur e t o meet r epor t i ng r equi r ement s or
obt ai n a good f ai t h wai ver coul d r esul t i n i mposi t i on of a
penal t y equal t o 1/ 8 of 1 per cent of t he di r ect or i ndi r ect
l abor cost s f or t he pr oj ect or cont r act f or each per cent age t hat
t he benef i ci ar y i s def i ci ent i n meet i ng t he hi r i ng r equi r ement s,
id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 4) ( B) . Fur t her , t wo vi ol at i ons can r esul t i n
debar ment f r omt he awar d of Di st r i ct pr oj ect s or cont r act s f or a
per i od not t o exceed f i ve year s. Id. 2- 219. 03( e) ( 4) ( D) .
C. Effect on Plaintiffs
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he addi t i onal r equi r ement s i mposed
by t he Amended Act have cr eat ed a si t uat i on i n whi ch
cont r act or s cannot possi bl y compl y wi t h t he Act s hi r i ng and
quot a r equi r ement s, and t hey ar e t hr eat ened wi t h j ob l osses,
busi ness f ai l ur es, and debar ment f r omgover nment cont r act i ng.
14

Compl . at 3. Whi l e t he ai mof t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s t o
pr omot e empl oyment i n t he Di st r i ct , Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat i t
uses unl awf ul and unconst i t ut i onal means t o t r y t o shi f t t o a
pr ef er r ed gr oup of peopl e Di st r i ct r esi dent s f i r st di bs on
j obs al r eady cr eat ed. Id. 81. They al l ege t hat t he r eal
i ssue wi t h empl oyment i n t he Di st r i ct i s not a shor t age of j obs,
but r at her a shor t age of qual i f i ed appl i cant s. See id.
Member s of Pl ai nt i f f ABC- Met r o Washi ngt on ( her ei naf t er
Met r o Washi ngt on) , i ncl udi ng t he t wo Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s,
have been or wi l l be benef i ci ar i es as def i ned by t he Act and,
as such, have al l egedl y been or wi l l be f or ced t o devi at e f r om
t hei r i ndi vi dual - mer i t , l evel - pl ayi ng- f i el d busi ness phi l osophy
because t hey must assess pr ospect i ve empl oyees based on wher e
t hey l i ve r at her t han t hei r abi l i t y t o do t he wor k. Compl .
15, 20, 41, 68, 69. Accor di ng t o Met r o Washi ngt on, i t s member s
t ypi cal l y hi r e a per manent wor kf or ce, as opposed t o a pr oj ect -
based one. Id. 15. As a r esul t , compl yi ng wi t h t he Act
essent i al l y r equi r es i t s member s t o ei t her wi t hhol d wor k f r om
non- Di st r i ct r esi dent s or decl i ne t o bi d on cer t ai n pr oj ect s
because of a shor t age of qual i f i ed Di st r i ct r esi dent s. Id.
Met r o Washi ngt on s member s al so pur por t edl y i ncur i ncr eased
r ecr ui t i ng, t r ai ni ng, hi r i ng, and super vi si on cost s as a r esul t
of compl i ance wi t h t he Act . Compl . 16, 17, 42, 52, 58.
15

Met r o Washi ngt on al l eges t hat but f or t he Act , i t s member s woul d
have not have i ncur r ed t hese cost s.
The Act has al l egedl y r esul t ed i n a host of ot her pr obl ems
f or Met r o Washi ngt on s member shi p, i ncl udi ng l ess pr oduct i vi t y,
hi gher over al l l abor cost s, decr ease i n mor al e among non-
Di st r i ct empl oyees, hi gher l egal f ees, debar ment f or vi ol at i ons,
f ewer pr oj ect s, l ayof f s, and hi gher cost s associ at ed wi t h
pr epar i ng bi ds f or pr oj ect s. Compl . 16, 17, 64, 71, 75, 76,
79. Met r o Washi ngt on al l eges t hat t he Amended Act wi l l al so
make i t mor e di f f i cul t f or i t s member s t o bi d on pr oj ect s t hat
r ecei ve mor e t han $5 mi l l i on i n gover nment assi st ance. Id.
70. Mor eover , Met r o Washi ngt on and t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s
cl ai mt hey wi l l i ncur addi t i onal cost s i n t r ai ni ng empl oyees on
t he r equi r ement s of t he Act , engagi ng wi t h t he Di st r i ct
gover nment and l eader shi p, and publ i c r el at i ons. The Cor por at e
Pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her al l ege t hat t hey ar e di scr i mi nat ed agai nst
because t hey ar e unabl e t o assi gn t r ai ned empl oyees t o pr oj ect s
i f t hey cannot sat i sf y t he 51 per cent Di st r i ct hi r i ng
r equi r ement . Id. 23, 43, 53, 59.
Met r o Washi ngt on ar gues t hat i n addi t i on t o t he har mt o i t s
member s, i t s own member shi p wi l l decr ease as i t s member s wi l l be
f or ced t o r educe t he amount of busi ness t hey conduct because of
t he i ncr eased cost of compl yi ng wi t h t he Amended Act . Id. 75.
Fur t her mor e, Met r o Washi ngt on al l eges t hat i t s member s t hat
16

cannot af f or d t o compl y wi t h t he Act wi l l al l egedl y be f or ced t o
cl ose, t hus f ur t her r educi ng member shi p. Id. 76. Accor di ng
t o Met r o Washi ngt on, i t s member s ar e al l egedl y at a si gni f i cant
di sadvant age as compar ed t o cont r act or s who choose not t o compl y
wi t h t he Act ; ar e not bot her ed by compl i ance; ar e abl e t o secur e
a wai ver ; or al r eady of f er r et i r ement benef i t s, heal t h pl ans,
and t r ai ni ng. Id. 44, 54, 72. Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat no
gener al cont r act or has been abl e t o meet , on a r egul ar basi s,
t he 51 per cent r equi r ement f or new hi r es. Id. 22. Accor di ng
t o Pl ai nt i f f s, t hi s i s t he r esul t of a number of f act or s,
i ncl udi ng: ( 1) an i nsuf f i ci ent number of ski l l ed wor ker s who
ar e Di st r i ct r esi dent s; ( 2) DOES s f ai l ur e t o vet and scr een
candi dat es and pr ovi de candi dat es wi t h appr opr i at e ski l l s f or a
par t i cul ar j ob; ( 3) Di st r i ct r esi dent s l ack of t r anspor t at i on,
whi ch makes i t di f f i cul t f or t hemt o r epor t t o j ob- si t es on
t i me; ( 4) t he di spr opor t i onat el y hi gh number of Di st r i ct
r esi dent s who f ai l r equi r ed dr ug t est s; and ( 5) t he
di spr opor t i onat e number of Di st r i ct r esi dent s who qui t wi t hi n
t he f i r st f ew weeks or ar e l et go because of poor at t endance or
per f or mance. Compl . 22. I f t he Act i s uphel d, Met r o
Washi ngt on and t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t hey wi l l
be f or ced t o bi d on f ewer pr oj ect s i n t he Di st r i ct , and wi l l
al so have t o i ncr ease t hei r pr i ces i n or der t o cover t he cost of
compl i ance wi t h t he Act . Id. 85.
17

The I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s cannot be l i st ed on t he Fi r st
Sour ce Regi st er because t hey ar e not Di st r i ct r esi dent s, whi ch
t hey al l ege pl aces t hemat a si gni f i cant di sadvant age when
compet i ng f or j obs t hat ar e subj ect t o an Empl oyment Agr eement
as def i ned by t he Act . Id. 14, 43, 53, 59. They al l ege t hat
t hi s r esul t s i n di scr i mi nat i on and excl udes t hemf r om
consi der at i on as par t of a t eamof l abor er s on si gni f i cant
Di st r i ct j obs not because of t hei r ski l l s but si mpl y because
t hey do not l i ve i n t he Di st r i ct . Id. 83.
II. Standard of Review
A. Rule 12(b)(1)
A f eder al di st r i ct cour t may onl y hear a cl ai mover whi ch
i s has subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on; t her ef or e, a Rul e 12( b) ( 1)
mot i on f or di smi ssal i s a t hr eshol d chal l enge t o a cour t s
j ur i sdi ct i on. On a mot i on t o di smi ss f or l ack of subj ect mat t er
j ur i sdi ct i on, t he pl ai nt i f f bear s t he bur den of est abl i shi ng
t hat t he Cour t has j ur i sdi ct i on. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U. S. 555, 561 ( 1992) . I n eval uat i ng t he mot i on, t he Cour t
must accept al l of t he f act ual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt as
t r ue and gi ve t he pl ai nt i f f t he benef i t of al l i nf er ences t hat
can be dr awn f r omt he f act s al l eged. See Thomas v. Principi,
394 F. 3d 970, 972 ( D. C. Ci r . 2005) . However , t he Cour t i s not
r equi r ed . . . t o accept i nf er ences unsuppor t ed by t he f act s
al l eged or l egal concl usi ons t hat ar e cast as f act ual
18

al l egat i ons. Cartwright Intl Van Lines, Inc. v. Doan, 525 F.
Supp. 2d 187, 193 ( D. D. C. 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
B. Rule 12(b)(6)
A mot i on t o di smi ss pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 6) t est s t he
l egal suf f i ci ency of t he compl ai nt . Browning v. Clinton, 292
F. 3d 235, 242 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) . I n or der t o be vi abl e, a
compl ai nt must cont ai n a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai m
showi ng t hat t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef , i n or der t o gi ve
t he def endant f ai r not i ce of what t he . . . cl ai mi s and t he
gr ounds upon whi ch i t r est s. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U. S. 544, 555 ( 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons
omi t t ed) . The pl ai nt i f f need not pl ead al l of t he el ement s of a
pr i ma f aci e case i n a compl ai nt , Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
534 U. S. 506, 511- 14 ( 2002) , nor must t he pl ai nt i f f pl ead f act s
or l aw t hat mat ch ever y el ement of a l egal t heor y. Krieger v.
Fadely, 211 F. 3d 134, 136 ( D. C. Ci r . 2000) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
However , despi t e t hese l i ber al pl eadi ng st andar ds, t o
sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss, a compl ai nt must cont ai n
suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er , accept ed as t r ue, t o st at e a cl ai m
f or r el i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s f ace. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on
omi t t ed) ; Twombly, 550 U. S. at 570. A cl ai mi s f aci al l y
pl ausi bl e when t he f act s pl ead i n t he compl ai nt al l ow t he cour t
19

t o dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e
f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. Iqbal, 556 U. S. at 678 ( ci t i ng
Twombly, 550 U. S. at 556) . Whi l e t hi s st andar d does not amount
t o a pr obabi l i t y r equi r ement , i t does r equi r e mor e t han a
sheer possi bi l i t y t hat a def endant has act ed unl awf ul l y. Id.
( ci t i ng Twombly, 550 U. S. at 556) .
[ W] hen r ul i ng on a def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss [ pur suant
t o Rul e 12( b) ( 6) ] , a j udge must accept as t r ue al l of t he
f act ual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he compl ai nt . Atherton v.
D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F. 3d 672, 681 ( D. C. Ci r . 2009)
( quot i ng Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U. S. 89, 93 ( 2007) ) . The cour t
must al so gi ve t he pl ai nt i f f t he benef i t of al l i nf er ences t hat
can be der i ved f r omt he f act s al l eged. Kowal v. MCI Commcns
Corp., 16 F. 3d 1271, 1276 ( D. C. Ci r . 1994) . Despi t e t hi s, a
cour t need not accept i nf er ences dr awn by pl ai nt i f f s i f such
i nf er ences ar e unsuppor t ed by t he f act s set out i n t he
compl ai nt . Id. Fur t her , [ t ] hr eadbar e r eci t al s of t he
el ement s of a cause of act i on, suppor t ed by mer e concl usor y
st at ement s ar e not suf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m. Iqbal, 556
U. S. at 678.
I n det er mi ni ng whet her a compl ai nt st at es a cl ai m, t he
cour t may consi der t he f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt , document s
at t ached t her et o or i ncor por at ed t her ei n, and mat t er s of whi ch
i t may t ake j udi ci al not i ce. Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. v. Chao, 508
20

F. 3d 1052, 1059 ( D. C. Ci r . 2007) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Among t he document s subj ect t o j udi ci al
not i ce on a mot i on t o di smi ss ar e publ i c r ecor ds. Kaempe v.
Myers, 367 F. 3d 958, 965 ( D. C. Ci r . 2004) .
III. Analysis
A. Standing
Ar t i cl e I I I r est r i ct s t he power of f eder al cour t s t o t he
adj udi cat i on of act ual cases and cont r over si es. U. S. Const .
ar t . I I I , 2; see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 750
( 1984) . Thi s r equi r ement has gi ven r i se t o sever al doct r i nes .
. . f ounded i n concer n about t he pr oper and pr oper l y l i mi t ed
r ol e of t he cour t s i n a democr at i c soci et y. Id. ( quot i ng
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 ( 1975) ) . I n or der t o
est abl i sh t he exi st ence of a case or cont r over sy wi t hi n t he
meani ng of Ar t i cl e I I I , [ a] par t y must meet cer t ai n
const i t ut i onal mi ni ma, i ncl udi ng a r equi r ement t hat . . . [ t he
par t y] has st andi ng t o br i ng t he act i on. Gettman v. DEA, 290
F. 3d 430, 433 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) . I ndeed, st andi ng i s an
essent i al and unchangi ng par t of t he case- or - cont r over sy
r equi r ement of Ar t i cl e I I I , Lujan, 504 U. S. at 560, and i s an
essent i al i nqui r y i nt o whet her t he pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o have
t he Cour t deci de t he mer i t s of t he di sput e, Allen, 468 U. S. at
750- 51 ( ci t i ng Warth, 422 U. S at 498) .
21

To est abl i sh t he i r r educi bl e const i t ut i onal mi ni mum of
st andi ng, a pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e t hr ee t hi ngs: ( 1)
i nj ur y i n f act , whi ch i s ( a) concr et e and par t i cul ar i zed and
( b) act ual or i mmi nent ; ( 2) t hat t her e i s a causal connect i on
bet ween t he compl ai ned of conduct and t he i nj ur y al l eged t hat i s
f ai r l y t r aceabl e t o t he def endant ; and ( 3) t hat i t i s l i kel y,
and not mer el y specul at i ve, t hat a f avor abl e deci si on wi l l ser ve
t o r edr ess t he i nj ur y al l eged. See Lujan, 504 U. S. at 560- 61
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Wher e, as
her e, a pl ai nt i f f seeks pr ospect i ve decl ar at or y or i nj unct i ve
r el i ef , al l egat i ons of past har mal one ar e i nsuf f i ci ent . See,
e.g., Dearth v. Holder, 641 F. 3d 499, 501 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) .
Rat her , a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng decl ar at i ve or i nj unct i ve r el i ef
must show he i s suf f er i ng an ongoi ng i nj ur y or f aces an
i mmedi at e t hr eat of [ f ut ur e] i nj ur y. Id.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e a t r ade or gani zat i on, t wo cor por at i ons t hat
pr ovi de cont r act i ng ser vi ces, and f our i ndi vi dual s who wor k i n
t he const r uct i on i ndust r y. Pl ai nt i f f Met r o Washi ngt on mai nt ai ns
t hat i t has bot h associ at i onal and or gani zat i onal st andi ng. See
Pl ai nt i f f s Opposi t i on t o Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( her ei naf t er Pl s.
Opp n) at 13. The Di st r i ct cont ends t hat t he I ndi vi dual and
Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o al l ege an i nj ur y i n f act
suf f i ci ent t o be t he basi s f or Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. Def s. MTD
at 17- 18. Mor eover , t he Di st r i ct ar gues t hat Met r o Washi ngt on
22

has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh bot h associ at i onal and or gani zat i onal
st andi ng because t he t wo Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s have not
est abl i shed st andi ng, and because Met r o Washi ngt on has f ai l ed
t o al l ege any di r ect conf l i ct bet ween i t s mi ssi on and t he
Fi r st Sour ce Act . Def s. MTD at 18; Def endant s Repl y i n
Suppor t of Mot i on t o Di smi ss ( her ei naf t er Def s. Repl y) at 4.
1. I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s
The f our I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s r esi de out si de of t he
Di st r i ct of Col umbi a but al l egedl y wor k on pr oj ect s wi t hi n t he
Di st r i ct . They cl ai mt hat t he Act has adver sel y af f ect ed t hei r
abi l i t y t o bi d f or or secur e wor k on Di st r i ct pr oj ect s i n t he
past and wi l l l i kel y cont i nue t o do so, and make mat t er s wor se
under t he Amended Act . Pl s. Opp n at 8 ( emphasi s i n
or i gi nal ) . They al so ar gue t hat t hey do not st and on an equal
f oot i ng wi t h ot her wor ker s because t hey cannot r egi st er on t he
Fi r st Sour ce Regi st er . Id. at 9. Thus, t hey ar e not par t of
t he hi r i ng pool cr eat ed by t he Act and ar e at a si gni f i cant
di sadvant age i n compet i ng f or j obs on pr oj ect s t hat ar e subj ect
t o t he Act s r equi r ement s. Id. at 9; see also Compl . 83 ( For
. . . t he i ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s, t he i mpact of t he Act i s t o
excl ude t hemf r omconsi der at i on as par t of a t eamof l abor er s on
si gni f i cant Di st r i ct j obs not because of t hei r ski l l s or desi r es
but si mpl y because t hey do not l i ve i n t he Di st r i ct . ) . These
23

i nj ur i es, accor di ng t o t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s, ar e ongoi ng
and i mmi nent . Pl s. Opp n at 9.
The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat t hi s har m, such as i t i s, i s not
t he t ype of par t i cul ar i zed i nj ur y r equi r ed t o suppor t st andi ng.
Accor di ng t o Def endant s, t he i nj ur i es t hat t he I ndi vi dual
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege ar e ent i r el y der i vat i ve of al l eged i nj ur i es
t o t hei r unnamed empl oyer ( s) . Def s. MTD at 17. The Di st r i ct
al so ar gues t hat t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms ar e f at al l y
at t enuat ed because t he Compl ai nt does not speci f y who t hey
wor ked f or , when t hey wor ked, or wher e t hey wor ked. Id. at 18.
The Di st r i ct does not di sput e t hat i f t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s
have al l eged an i nj ur y i n f act , t hey woul d sat i sf y t he r emai ni ng
st andi ng r equi r ement s.
The maj or i t y of t he r equi r ement s of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act as
enact ed and amended do not di r ect l y appl y t o t he I ndi vi dual
Pl ai nt i f f s. Rat her , t he Act ar guabl y i mpact s t he bi ddi ng,
hi r i ng, and r epor t i ng pr ocedur es f or const r uct i on compani es t hat
wor k on or bi d f or pr oj ect s or cont r act s f ul l y or par t i al l y
f unded or admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct . The I ndi vi dual
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hei r abi l i t y t o secur e wor k i s
nonet hel ess adver sel y af f ect ed by t he Act s r equi r ement s,
despi t e t he f act t hat t hose r equi r ement s do not appear t o appl y
t o t hem. See Pl s. Opp n at 8. They ar gue t hat t hi s t ype of
i nj ur y has been f ound suf f i ci ent t o conf er st andi ng i n si mi l ar
24

cases. Id. ( ci t i ng Util. Contractors Assn of New England, Inc.
v. City of Fall River, No. 10- 10994- RZW, 2011 U. S. Di st . LEXI S
114333 ( D. Mass. Oct . 4, 2011) ) . I n Fall River, t he cour t
consi der ed a chal l enge t o a l ocal or di nance t hat r equi r ed t hat a
cer t ai n per cent age of wor ker s on pr oj ect s f unded by l ocal f unds,
f eder al gr ant s, or l oans be Fal l Ri ver r esi dent s. 2011 U. S.
Di st . LEXI S 114333, at *2- 3. The cour t hel d t hat t he i ndi vi dual
pl ai nt i f f i n t he case had st andi ng because he al l eged t hat he
coul d not compet e f ai r l y i n t he bi ddi ng pr ocess. Id. at *7- 8.
Accor di ng t o t he cour t , i n t he cont ext of st andi ng, i t i s
i mmat er i al whet her t he pl ai nt i f f has act ual l y bi d on or appl i ed
f or a j ob at a pr oj ect cover ed by t he or di nance, r at her ,
i nj ur y i n f act i s t he i nabi l i t y t o compet e on an equal
f oot i ng. Id. at *8 ( quot i ng Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated
Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 508 U. S.
656, 666 ( 1993) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
The Cour t f i nds t hat t he i ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged
a suf f i ci ent i nj ur y i n f act f or t he pur poses of Ar t i cl e I I I
st andi ng. They have al l eged a concr et e i nj ur y namel y, t hat as
non- Di st r i ct r esi dent s, t hey cannot r egi st er f or t he Fi r st
Sour ce Regi st er and t hat t hei r abi l i t y t o compet e f or
const r uct i on j obs t her ef or e has been and wi l l cont i nue t o be
25

adver sel y i mpact ed by t he Act .
4
As t he Supr eme Cour t i nst r uct ed
i n Lujan, [ a] t t he pl eadi ng st age, gener al f act ual al l egat i ons
of i nj ur y r esul t i ng f r omt he def endant s conduct may suf f i ce,
f or on a mot i on t o di smi ss [ cour t s] pr esume t hat gener al
al l egat i ons embr ace t hose speci f i c f act s t hat ar e necessar y t o
suppor t t he cl ai m. 504 U. S. at 561 ( quot i ng Lujan v. Natl
Wildlife Fedn, 497 U. S. 871, 889 ( 1990) ) .
I ndeed, t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s ar e i n a si mi l ar posi t i on
as t he pl ai nt i f f s f ound t o have st andi ng i n Northeastern Florida
Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of
Jacksonville, Florida, 508 U. S. 656 ( 1993) . Ther e, an
associ at i on of cont r act or s chal l enged a l ocal or di nance t hat
set asi de cont r act s f or mi nor i t i es and women on equal
pr ot ect i on gr ounds. I n t hat cont ext , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d
t hat [ w] hen t he gover nment er ect s a bar r i er t hat makes i t mor e
di f f i cul t f or member s of one gr oup t o obt ai n a benef i t t han i t
i s f or member s of anot her gr oup, a member of t he f or mer gr oup
seeki ng t o chal l enge t he bar r i er need not al l ege t hat he woul d

4
The Di st r i ct s ar gument t o t he cont r ar y i s unavai l i ng. The
Di st r i ct cont ends t hat t he Act does not pr ohi bi t t he i ndi vi dual
Pl ai nt i f f s f r ompur sui ng t hei r pr of essi on i n t he Di st r i ct or
r egul at e t hei r abi l i t y t o engage i n busi ness i n t he Di st r i ct as
non- ci t i zens. Def s. MTD at 19- 20. However , as t he di scussi on
of Northeastern Florida i ndi cat es, t he i ssue i s whet her t he
I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s ar e i n a l ess compet i t i ve posi t i on vi s a
vi s t hei r Di st r i ct count er par t s on pr oj ect s cover ed by t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act . That t hey ar e st i l l el i gi bl e f or empl oyment on
t hose pr oj ect s does not def eat t hei r st andi ng.
26

have obt ai ned t he benef i t but f or t he bar r i er i n or der t o
est abl i sh st andi ng. Id. at 666. I nst ead, t he i nj ur y i n f act
i s t he deni al of equal t r eat ment r esul t i ng f r omt he i mposi t i on
of t he bar r i er , not t he ul t i mat e i nabi l i t y t o obt ai n t he
benef i t . Id. I n a chal l enge t o a r esi dent i al pr ef er ence
st at ut e l i ke t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , t he i nj ur y i n f act i s t he
i nabi l i t y t o compet e on an equal f oot i ng i n t he bi ddi ng pr ocess,
not t he l oss of cont r act . Id. ( ci t i ng City of Richmond v. J.
A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493 ( 1989) ) .
Thus, t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s have est abl i shed st andi ng
because t hey have demonst r at ed t hat t hey ar e abl e and r eady t o
wor k on pr oj ect s cover ed by t he Fi r st Sour ce Act and t hat t he
Act pr event s t hemf r omdoi ng so on an equal basi s. Id.; see
also Dynalantic Corp. v. Dept of Def., 115 F. 3d 1012, 1015- 16
( D. C. Ci r . 1997) ( f i ndi ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f t hat woul d not have
qual i f i ed f or t he Smal l Busi ness Associ at i on s set - asi de pr ogr am
and di d not wi sh t o par t i ci pat e i n t he pr ogr amnever t hel ess had
st andi ng because i t s i nj ur y was i t s l ack of oppor t uni t y t o
compet e f or Def ense Depar t ment cont r act s r eser ved f or f i r ms
t hat coul d par t i ci pat e i n t he pr ogr am) .
The I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s have al so est abl i shed causat i on
and r edr essabi l i t y. Pl ai nt i f f s cannot be l i st ed on t he Fi r st
Sour ce Regi st er because onl y Di st r i ct r esi dent s can be l i st ed.
And, but f or t he Act , t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s woul d not have
27

t o cont end wi t h pr ef er ent i al hi r i ng r equi r ement s f or Di st r i ct
r esi dent s on pr oj ect s val ued at l ess t han $5 mi l l i on, or by
t r ade f or cer t ai n l ar ge- scal e pr oj ect s f or whi ch t he Di st r i ct s
f i nanci al assi st ance i s mor e t han $5 mi l l i on. I t does not
def eat t hei r st andi ng, as t he Di st r i ct ar gues, t hat t hey have
f ai l ed t o al l eged [ si c] any speci f i cs as t o when or how t hei r
empl oyment choi ces have been af f ect ed by any ot her ent i t y s
r egul at i on by t he Di st r i ct . Def s. MTD at 18 ( emphasi s i n
or i gi nal ) .
2. Met r o Washi ngt on and t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s
Because Met r o Washi ngt on i s an associ at i on, i t may sue i n
i t s own r i ght or on behal f of i t s member s. Met r o Washi ngt on
ar gues t hat i t has sat i sf i ed t he r equi r ement s f or bot h
associ at i onal and or gani zat i onal st andi ng. Because t he t wo
Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s ar e member s of Met r o Washi ngt on, t he Cour t
wi l l consi der t hei r st andi ng i n t he cont ext of Met r o
Washi ngt on s associ at i onal st andi ng.
[ A] n associ at i on may have st andi ng t o asser t t he cl ai ms of
i t s member s even wher e i t has suf f er ed no i nj ur y f r omt he
chal l enged act i vi t y. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Commn,
432 U. S. 333, 342 ( 1977) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . A pl ai nt i f f has
associ at i onal st andi ng t o sue on behal f of i t s member s i f : ( 1)
at l east one of i t s member s woul d have st andi ng t o sue i n hi s
own r i ght , ( 2) t he i nt er est s t he associ at i on seeks t o pr ot ect
28

ar e ger mane t o i t s pur pose, and ( 3) nei t her t he cl ai masser t ed
nor t he r el i ef r equest ed r equi r es t hat an i ndi vi dual member of
t he associ at i on par t i ci pat e i n t he l awsui t . Chamber of
Commerce v. EPA, 642 F. 3d 192, 200 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ; see also
Hunt, 432 U. S. at 343.
The Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s ar e bot h member s of Met r o
Washi ngt on and cl ai mt o adher e t o t he or gani zat i on s phi l osophy
of r ewar di ng empl oyees based on i ndi vi dual mer i t and
per f or mance. Compl . 4- 6. They have been benef i ci ar i es as
def i ned by t he Act and ant i ci pat e t hat t hey wi l l cont i nue t o be
benef i ci ar i es f or f ut ur e pr oj ect s. They al l ege t hat t he Act has
made i t mor e di f f i cul t f or t hemt o bi d on pr oj ect s t hat t he
Di st r i ct f unds i n whol e or i n par t , or t hat i t admi ni st er s, and
t hat t hey have had t o i ncr ease t he t i me spent on admi ni st r at i ve
mat t er s as a r esul t of t hei r compl i ance wi t h t he Fi r st Sour ce
Act . Id. 16. For i nst ance, Pl ai nt i f f Mi l l er and Long al l eges
t hat i t s exper i ence under t he Fi r st Sour ce Act has been t hat i t
has t o scr een appr oxi mat el y 60 Di st r i ct appl i cant s t o hi r e 25
wor ker s, t he maj or i t y of whomar e not empl oyed si x mont hs l at er .
Id. I t cont ends t hat t hi s scr eeni ng number i s t hr ee t i mes
hi gher f or Di st r i ct r esi dent s t han f or r esi dent s of Mar yl and and
Vi r gi ni a.
5
Id.

5
Ther e ar e no speci f i c al l egat i ons r egar di ng Pl ai nt i f f Hawki ns
El ect r i cal Const r uct i on of D. C.
29

I n addi t i on t o t hese admi ni st r at i ve cost s, t he Cor por at e
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he r equi r ement s of t he Act have i mposed
addi t i onal cost s t hat t hey woul d not have i ncur r ed but f or t he
Act , such as decr eased pr oduct i vi t y and mor al e, hi gher l egal
f ees, and cost s associ at ed wi t h meet i ng r epor t i ng obl i gat i ons.
Id. 17, 33, 42. The Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s al so cl ai mt hat
t hey suf f er a compet i t i ve di sadvant age i n compar i son t o
const r uct i on compani es t hat do not t r y t o compl y wi t h t he Act ,
t hat do not oppose ent er i ng i nt o Empl oyment Agr eement s t hat l i nk
hi r i ng t o r esi dency, or t hat ar e abl e t o secur e wai ver s or
exempt i ons.
6
Id. 18, 28, 34, 44, 54. The Cor por at e
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t hey wi l l cont i nue t o i ncur such cost s
i nt o t he f ut ur e under t he Amended Act . Id.
The Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her al l ege t hat t hey have
suf f er ed a compet i t i ve economi c i nj ur y because t hey have
i ncur r ed cost s ( f or t r ai ni ng, r ecr ui t i ng, hi r i ng, and
super vi si on) and a di sr upt i on i n busi ness as a r esul t of
compl yi ng wi t h t he Act . Pl s. Opp n at 12 ( r ef er enci ng speci f i c
por t i ons of t he Compl ai nt ) . Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, such a
showi ng i s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat t hey have suf f er ed


6
The Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s do not seemt o be al l egi ng t hat t hey
coul d not secur e such wai ver s, t hough t hey compar e t hemsel ves t o
hypot het i cal cont r act or s who ar e abl e t o secur e wai ver s wher e
t hey ar e not .

30

i nj ur y i n f act . Id. Fi nal l y, t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue
t hat t hey have been i nj ur ed by t he pr ospect of i ncur r i ng t he
penal t i es i n t he Amended Act ; however , t hey have not al l eged
t hat t hey have pai d any penal t i es under t he Act as enact ed.
7

Accor di ng t o t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s, however , t he Di st r i ct s
vol unt ar y deci si on not t o enf or ce t he Fi r st Sour ce Act does not
def eat t hei r st andi ng. Id. ( ci t i ng Util. Contractors, 2011
U. S. Di st . LEXI S 114333, at *8 ( hol di ng t hat t he f act t hat
def endant deci ded not t o enf or ce t he chal l enged r egul at i on di d
not def eat pl ai nt i f f s st andi ng) ) .
I n suppor t of t hei r ar gument , Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e t o Air
Transport Association of America v. Export-Import Bank, wher e
t he cour t det er mi ned t hat an associ at i on r epr esent i ng sever al
member ai r l i nes had al l eged t hat i t s member s had suf f er ed a
compet i t i ve i nj ur y suf f i ci ent t o conf er st andi ng. 878 F. Supp.
2d 42, 55- 63 ( 2012) . The Ai r Tr anspor t Associ at i on ( ATA)
chal l enged t he deci si on of t he Expor t - I mpor t Bank t o pr ovi de
l oan guar ant ees t o Ai r I ndi a, ar gui ng t hat t he guar ant ees
vi ol at ed t he Expor t - I mpor t Bank Act . Bef or e r eachi ng t he
mer i t s, t he cour t consi der ed whet her t he ATA had associ at i onal
st andi ng t o pr oceed on behal f of ni ne member ai r l i nes by

7
Nor coul d t hey, accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , because t he
i mposi t i on of penal t i es f or noncompl i ance has never occur r ed
and no cont r act or has been f i ned f or noncompl i ance si nce t he l aw
was enact ed. Commi t t ee Repor t at 7.
31

assessi ng whet her i t s member s goi ng f or war d woul d have st andi ng
t o sue i n t hei r own r i ght . 878 F. Supp. 2d at 54. The ATA
ar gued t hat t he Bank s al l egedl y unl awf ul l oan guar ant ees had
i nj ur ed i t s member s i n t he past and t hat t he guar ant ees at i ssue
woul d i mmi nent l y i nj ur e i t s member s because f or ei gn ai r l i nes
woul d be al l owed t o bor r ow at cheaper r at es, t hus i ncr easi ng
compet i t i on i n i nt er nat i onal t r avel . Id. at 56. I n deci di ng
whet her t he ATA had compet i t or st andi ng, t he cour t expl ai ned
t hat i n or der t o i nvoke compet i t or st andi ng, a pl ai nt i f f need
not show t hat t he i nj ur y f r omi ncr eased compet i t i on has al r eady
occur r ed. Id. at 56. To t he cont r ar y, as l ong as a pl ai nt i f f
can demonst r at e an i mmi nent i ncr ease i n compet i t i on, t he
cour t r ecogni zes t hat t hat i ncr ease . . . wi l l al most cer t ai nl y
cause an i nj ur y i n f act . Id. ( quot i ng La. Energy & Power Auth.
v. FERC, 141 F. 3d 364, 367 ( D. C. Ci r . 1998) ) . Never t hel ess, t he
cour t st r essed t hat t he i ncr ease i n compet i t i on must be i mmi nent
and not mer el y specul at i ve f or a pl ai nt i f f t o i nvoke compet i t or
st andi ng. Id. Thus, t o demonst r at e a const i t ut i onal l y
suf f i ci ent compet i t i ve i nj ur y, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he
chal l enged act i on has t he cl ear and i mmedi at e pot ent i al t o cause
compet i t i ve har m. Id. ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks
omi t t ed) .
Pl ai nt i f f s r el i ance on Air Transport i s mi spl aced. Unl i ke
t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s her e, t he ATA pr ovi ded det ai l ed f act ual
32

i nf or mat i on about how new pl anes f or f or ei gn ai r l i nes woul d
compet e wi t h ATA member ai r l i nes on par t i cul ar r out es bet ween
I ndi a and t he Uni t ed St at es. Id. at 58- 59. Thi s ar gument was
suppor t ed by decl ar at i ons of i ndust r y exper t s. Id. On t he
basi s of t hi s f act ual showi ng, t he cour t hel d t hat t he ATA had
al l eged an appr opr i at e i nj ur y. Id. at 63. No Pl ai nt i f f has
made such a f act ual showi ng her e. I ndeed, as Def endant s ar gue,
t he Compl ai nt f ai l s t o pr ovi de any det ai l s about speci f i c
pr oj ect s or t he i mpact of t he Act on t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s
cost s f or t hose pr oj ect s. Def s. MTD at 15 n. 25, 17.
Def endant s ar gue t hat t he i nj ur i es cl ai med by t he Cor por at e
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e t hus not onl y specul at i ve, but al so t hat t hey ar e
not hi ng mor e t han al l egat i ons of f ut ur e i nj ur y t hat cannot
sat i sf y t he r equi r ement s of Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng. Def s. Repl y
at 6. Fur t her , t he Di st r i ct cont ends t he Pl ai nt i f f s i nvocat i on
of compet i t or st andi ng, whi ch r ecogni ze[ es] t hat economi c
act or s suf f er [ an] i nj ur y i n f act when agenci es l i f t r egul at or y
r est r i ct i ons on t hei r compet i t or s or ot her wi se al l ow i ncr eased
compet i t i on agai nst t hem, i s l egal l y def i ci ent . Id. at 7
( quot i ng Sherley v. Sebelius, 610 F. 3d 69, 72 ( D. C. Ci r . 2010)
( quot i ng La. Energy & Power Auth. v. FERC, 141 F. 3d 364, 367
( D. C. Ci r . 1998) ) . Accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , t he Fi r st Sour ce
Act does not l i f t r est r i ct i ons on pl ai nt i f f s compet i t or s, or
ot her wi se al l ow i ncr eased compet i t i on agai nst t hem because t he
33

pr ovi si ons of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act appl y i dent i cal l y t o al l
cover ed ent i t i es, bot h wi t hi n and out si de t he Di st r i ct . Id.
Def endant s ar e cor r ect t hat t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s have
not est abl i shed a compet i t i ve i nj ur y suf f i ci ent t o conf er
st andi ng, especi al l y because t he Act appl i es t o al l act or s i n
t he mar ket , and does not di f f er ent i at e bet ween cont r act or s.
However , t o t he ext ent t hat t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s have
al l eged t hat t hey must i ncur addi t i onal cost s t o compl y wi t h t he
Act , t hey have al l eged a suf f i ci ent i nj ur y. For i nst ance, i n
Investment Co. Institute v. United States CFTC, t he cour t f ound
t hat pl ai nt i f f s who al l eged t hat t hey woul d f ace an i ncr eased
r egul at or y bur den and t he associ at ed cost s of t hat r egul at i on
had al l eged an i nj ur y i n f act f or t he pur poses of Ar t i cl e I I I
st andi ng. 891 F. Supp. 2d. 162, 185 ( D. D. C. 2012) . The cour t
al so hel d t hat a deci si on t hat i nval i dat ed t he chal l enged
r egul at i on woul d f ul l y r edr ess t he i nj ur i es al l eged. Id.
Si mi l ar l y, her e, t he al l eged addi t i onal admi ni st r at i ve and ot her
cost s al l eged by t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s ar e di r ect l y t r aceabl e
t o t hei r cur r ent and f ut ur e compl i ance wi t h t he Fi r st Sour ce
Act , and a deci si on by t hi s Cour t i nval i dat i ng t he Act , t her eby
r emovi ng t he r equi r ement t hat t hey i ncur t hose cost s, woul d
di r ect l y r edr ess t hei r i nj ur i es. Thus, t he Cor por at e
Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons of mandat or y compl i ance wi t h t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act , and t he admi ni st r at i ve r equi r ement s t hat ar e
34

necessar y f or compl i ance, ar e suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y t he
const i t ut i onal r equi r ement of i nj ur y i n f act . See Assn of Am.
R.R.S. v. Dept of Transp., 38 F. 3d 582, 585- 86 ( D. C. Ci r . 1994)
( st at i ng t hat t her e i s undeni abl y a l i ve, concr et e case or
cont r over sy ; t he [ pl ai nt i f f s] al l ege t hat t hey ar e mat er i al l y
har med by t he addi t i onal r egul at or y bur den i mposed upon t hemas
a r esul t of a f eder al agency s unl awf ul adopt i on of a r ul e, and
seek t o have t hat r ul e over t ur ned. We hol d under t he
ci r cumst ances t hat t he [ pl ai nt i f f s] ha[ ve] st andi ng) ; Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. FERC, 193 F. Supp. 2d 54, 60- 61 ( D. D. C. 2002)
( hol di ng t hat compl i ance wi t h r epor t i ng obl i gat i ons was
suf f i ci ent i nj ur y i n f act t o conf er st andi ng on pl ai nt i f f s) .
Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he
Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng. Ther ef or e, because t hey can
br i ng t hi s act i on i n t hei r own r i ght ; because Met r o Washi ngt on
has al l eged t hat i t s i ndi vi dual mer i t phi l osophy i s ger mane t o
i t s pur pose; and because t he par t i ci pat i on of i t s member s i s not
r equi r ed t o pr ovi de t hemwi t h t he r el i ef t hey seek, t he Cour t
f i nds t hat Met r o Washi ngt on al so has associ at i onal st andi ng t o
pr oceed.
8



8
Because t he Cour t f i nds t hat Met r o Washi ngt on has associ at i onal
st andi ng, i t need not consi der whet her i t al so has
or gani zat i onal st andi ng.

35

B. Privileges and Immunities Clause
Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act vi ol at es t he
Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on, whi ch
pr ovi des t hat t he Ci t i zens of each St at e shal l be ent i t l ed t o
al l Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es of Ci t i zens i n t he sever al
St at es.
9
U. S. Const . ar t . I V, 2, cl . 1. The Cl ause pr event s
st at es f r omenact i ng l egi sl at i on t hat woul d di scr i mi nat e agai nst
r esi dent s of ot her st at es i n f avor of t hei r own. See Supreme
Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U. S. 274, 285 n. 18 ( 1985) .
Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m
wi t h r espect t o t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause because,
assumi ng t hat t he Cl ause appl i ed t o t he Di st r i ct , t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act does not vi ol at e t he Cl ause.
As an i ni t i al mat t er , t he par t i es di sagr ee over whet her t he
Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause appl i es t o t he Di st r i ct of
Col umbi a because, by i t s expr ess t er ms, i t r ef er ences
[ c] i t i zens of each St at e. U. S. Const . ar t . I V, 2, cl . 1.
Because t he Di st r i ct i s not a st at e, i t i s an open quest i on
whet her t he Cl ause appl i es t o i t . See Banner v. United States,

9
The Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause does not appl y t o
cor por at i ons, t hus t he t wo Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s and Met r o
Washi ngt on do not have st andi ng t o chal l enge t he Fi r st Sour ce
Act under t he Cl ause. See W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. Bd. of
Equalization of Cal., 451 U. S. 648, 656 ( 1981) ; Hemphill v.
Orloff, 277 U. S. 537, 548- 50 ( 1928) . However , t he I ndi vi dual
Pl ai nt i f f s do have st andi ng t o chal l enge t he Fi r st Sour ce Act
under t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause.

36

303 F. Supp. 2d 1, 25 ( D. D. C. 2004) . I n t hei r mot i on t o
di smi ss, Def endant s di d not addr ess t he appl i cabi l i t y of t he
Cl ause t o t he Di st r i ct , st at i ng i nst ead i n a f oot not e t hat :
Whi l e t he Di st r i ct does not concede t hat t he Cl ause appl i es t o
i t , f or t he pur poses of t hi s Mot i on, t he Di st r i ct assumes t hat
i t does. Def s. MTD at 20 n. 29. Pl ai nt i f f s const r ued t hi s
f oot not e as a concessi on t hat t he Cl ause appl i ed f or t he
pur poses of Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss, Pl s. Opp n at 16
n. 7, whi ch Def endant s di sput ed i n t hei r r epl y, Def s. MTD at 8.
On t he basi s of t hi s di sput e, t he Cour t or der ed suppl ement al
br i ef i ng on t he i ssue of whet her t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es
Cl ause appl i es t o t he Di st r i ct . See Mar ch 23, 2013 Mi nut e
Or der . The par t i es f i l ed suppl ement al r esponses i n Apr i l 2013 -
- Def endant s ar gued t hat t he Cl ause di d not appl y t o t he
Di st r i ct , wher eas Pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat i t di d. See Def s.
Supp. P&I Mem. ; Pl s. Supp. P&I Mem.
The D. C. Ci r cui t has onl y addr essed t he appl i cabi l i t y of
t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause t o t he Di st r i ct on t wo
occasi ons, bot h pr i or t o t he enact ment of t he Home Rul e Act i n
1973. Fi r st , i n Duehay v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co., t he
cour t hel d t hat t he Cl ause was i nappl i cabl e t o t he Di st r i ct
because [ i ] t i s a l i mi t at i on upon t he power s of t he st at es and
i n no way af f ect s t he power s of Congr ess over t he t er r i t or i es
and t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a. 105 F. 2d 768, 775 ( D. C. Ci r .
37

1939) . The Ci r cui t agai n f ound t hat t he Cl ause di d not appl y t o
t he Di st r i ct t he f ol l owi ng year i n Neild v. District of
Columbia, 110 F. 2d 246 ( D. C. Ci r . 1940) . Ther e, ci t i ng Duehay,
t he Cour t not ed i n a f oot not e t hat t he pr i vi l eges and
i mmuni t i es cl ause i s a l i mi t at i on upon t he st at es onl y and i n no
way af f ect s t he power s of Congr ess over t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a
or t he t er r i t or i es. 110 F. 2d at 249 n. 3. Si nce 1940, t he
Supr eme Cour t has f ound t hat t he Cl ause does appl y t o cer t ai n
t er r i t or i es, t hough cr uci al l y, t he or gani c act s f or t hose
t er r i t or i es i ncl ude a pr ovi si on maki ng t he Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause appl i cabl e. See Chase Manhattan Bank v. South
Acres Dev. Co., 434 U. S. 236 ( 1978) ( not i ng t hat Congr ess
expl i ci t l y ext ended t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause t o Guam
i n i t s Or gani c Act ) ; Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U. S. 415 ( 1952)
( hol di ng t hat t he cl ause appl i ed t o Al aska, whi ch was a
t er r i t or y on i t s way t o becomi ng a st at e) . The Home Rul e Act
cont ai ns no si mi l ar l anguage; and t he Di st r i ct , unl i ke ot her
t er r i t or i es, i s par t i al l y gover ned by Congr ess.
The Di st r i ct has not moved t o Di smi ss on t he gr ounds t hat
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s a val i d r esi dence based cl assi f i cat i on
because t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause i s not a bar on
Di st r i ct act i on. Rat her , i t ar gues t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s
a val i d r esi dence pr ef er ence under t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es
Cl ause. Thus, f or t he pur poses of t hi s mot i on, t he Cour t need
38

not r each t he quest i on of whet her t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es
Cl ause appl i es t o t he Di st r i ct because t he Di st r i ct has not
sought r el i ef on t hat i ssue.
The Supr eme Cour t has l ong hel d t hat t he t he pr i vi l eges
and i mmuni t i es cl ause i s not an absol ut e. Toomer v. Witsell,
334 U. S. 385, 396 ( 1948) . Equal t r eat ment f or ci t i zens,
r esi dent s, and nonr esi dent s has onl y been r equi r ed wi t h r espect
t o t hose pr i vi l eges and i mmuni t i es bear i ng upon t he vi t al i t y
of t he Nat i on as a si ngl e ent i t y. Baldwin v. Fish and Game
Commn of Montana, 436 U. S. 371, 383 ( 1978) . When det er mi ni ng
whet her a par t i cul ar r esi dency cl assi f i cat i on vi ol at es t he
Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause, t he cour t must conduct a t wo-
st ep anal ysi s. Fi r st , t he act i vi t y pur por t edl y t hr eat ened by
t he cl assi f i cat i on must be suf f i ci ent l y basi c t o t he l i vel i hood
of t he Nat i on as t o f al l wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he cl ause.
Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U. S. 59, 64 ( 1988)
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Second, i f
t he chal l enged r est r i ct i on depr i ves nonr esi dent s of a pr ot ect ed
pr i vi l ege, i t i s const i t ut i onal l y i mper mi ssi bl e i f t he
r est r i ct i on i s not cl osel y r el at ed t o t he advancement of a
subst ant i al st at e i nt er est . Friedman, 487 U. S. at 65 ( ci t i ng
Piper, 470 U. S. at 284) .
The f i r st st ep of t he anal ysi s r equi r es t he cour t t o
consi der whet her t he Act bur dens a pr i vi l ege or i mmuni t y
39

pr ot ect ed by t he Cl ause. United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council
v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U. S. 208, 218 ( 1984) .
Because not al l r esi dency cl assi f i cat i ons ar e const i t ut i onal l y
suspect , t he cour t must det er mi ne whet her t he non- r esi dent s
i nt er est i s f undament al t o pr omot i ng i nt er st at e har mony and t hus
cover ed by t he Cl ause. See Baldwin, 436 U. S. at 387 ( expl ai ni ng
t hat t he pr ot ect i ons of t he Cl ause appl y t o f undament al r i ght s,
whi ch ar e t hose i nvol vi ng basi c and essent i al act i vi t i es,
i nt er f er ence wi t h whi ch woul d f r ust r at e t he pur poses of t he
f or mat i on of t he Uni on) . The Supr eme Cour t has hel d t hat t he
abi l i t y t o pur sue a common cal l i ng i s one of t he most
f undament al of t hose pr i vi l eges pr ot ect ed by t he Cl ause.
Camden, 465 U. S. at 219 ( ci t i ng Baldwin, 436 U. S. at 387) .
Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act
unconst i t ut i onal l y i mpedes t hei r abi l i t y t o pur sue t hei r common
cal l i ng. Compl . 90; Pl s. Opp n at 16- 17. Though publ i c
empl oyment i s di st i nct f r ompr i vat e empl oyment , t he Supr eme
Cour t has r ecogni zed t hat empl oyment on publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s i s
a f undament al r i ght pr ot ect ed by t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es
Cl ause. I ndeed, [ t ] he oppor t uni t y t o seek empl oyment wi t h such
pr i vat e empl oyer s i s suf f i ci ent l y basi c t o t he l i vel i hood of t he
Nat i on as t o f al l wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause even t hough t he cont r act or s and subcont r act or s
t hemsel ves ar e engaged i n pr oj ect s f unded i n whol e or i n par t by
40

t he ci t y. Camden, 465 U. S. at 221- 22. ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Never t hel ess, t hi s i s not t he end
of t he i nqui r y a r egul at i on t hat di scr i mi nat es agai nst a
pr ot ect ed pr i vi l ege may nonet hel ess be val i d wher e t her e i s a
subst ant i al r eason f or t he di f f er ence i n t r eat ment . Id. at
222.
Wher e a pr ot ect ed pr i vi l ege or i mmuni t y i s i mpl i cat ed by a
par t i cul ar st at e l aw or r egul at i on, t he st at e can def eat t he
chal l enge by demonst r at i ng t hat t her e i s somet hi ng t o i ndi cat e
t hat non- ci t i zens const i t ut e a pecul i ar sour ce of t he evi l at
whi ch t he st at ut e i s ai med. Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U. S. 518,
526 ( 1978) ; see also Camden, 465 U. S. at 222. The Supr eme Cour t
has expl ai ned t hat t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause does
not pr ecl ude di spar i t y of t r eat ment i n t he many si t uat i ons wher e
t her e ar e per f ect l y val i d i ndependent r easons f or i t . Toomer,
334 U. S. at 396. I n t hose cases wher e such r easons exi st , t he
i nqui r y must be concer ned wi t h whet her . . . t he degr ee of
di scr i mi nat i on bear s a cl ose r el at i on t o t hem. Id. Cour t s
must al so gi ve due r egar d [ t o] t he pr i nci pal [ si c] t hat t he
St at es shoul d have consi der abl e l eeway i n anal yzi ng l ocal evi l s
and pr escr i bi ng appr opr i at e cur es. Id.
The Di st r i ct cont ends t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s
necessar y t o count er act t he gr ave economi c di spar i t y t hat i t
f aces as a r esul t of i t s i nabi l i t y t o l evy a commut er t ax on
41

non- r esi dent s, who hol d 70 per cent of j obs i n t he Di st r i ct .
Def s. MTD at 22; see also Banner, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 26. Thi s
si t uat i on, l egal l y mandat ed by Congr ess i n t he Home Rul e Act ,
cr eat es a st r uct ur al i mbal ance unl i ke t hat f aced by any ot her
j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he count r y, one whi ch t he Fi r st Sour ce Act ai ms
t o al l evi at e. Id.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t o t he cont r ar y t hat t he Di st r i ct has not
pr ovi ded a subst ant i al r eason f or t he di scr i mi nat i on caused by
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act . Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, mor e t ax
r evenue i s not a suf f i ci ent r eason f or di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst
non- r esi dent s. Pl s. Opp n at 17- 19. Fur t her , Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m
t he Act i s not nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o combat a par t i cul ar sour ce
of evi l because nonr esi dent s ar e not a pecul i ar sour ce of
unempl oyment i n t he Di st r i ct , nor ar e t hey t he sour ce of any
ot her l ocal evi l . Id. at 19 ( quot i ng Compl . 93, 114) .
The f act t hat t her e ar e mor e non- r esi dent s t han r esi dent s
wor ki ng i n t he Di st r i ct , accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, i s a sympt om
of ot her soci al and economi c i l l s. Id.
Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt out t hat vi r t ual l y ever y ot her r esi dence
pr ef er ence l aw t hat has been chal l enged on Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es gr ounds has been f ound t o be unconst i t ut i onal .
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e cor r ect about t he st at e of Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause j ur i spr udence. Ever y case of whi ch t he Cour t
i s awar e has f ound t hat t he j ur i sdi ct i on i nvol ved used t he
42

r esi dence pr ef er ence l aw pr i mar i l y as a means f or economi c
pr ot ect i oni sm. Unl i ke t he Di st r i ct , however , none of t hese
j ur i sdi ct i ons ar e l egal l y bar r ed f r omr ai si ng r evenue t hr ough
t he i mposi t i on of t axes, nor ar e t hey r equi r ed t o submi t l ocal
l egi sl at i on t o Congr ess f or r evi ew.
For i nst ance, pl ai nt i f f s chal l engi ng a Wor cest er ,
Massachuset t s l aw t hat r equi r ed al l cont r act or s on publ i c
pr oj ect s t o al l ocat e 50 per cent of al l empl oyee wor k hour s t o
ci t y r esi dent s wer e gr ant ed a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on agai nst
enf or cement of t he l aw. Util. Contractors Assn of New England,
Inc. v. City of Worcester, 236 F. Supp. 2d 113 ( D. Mass. 2002) .
I n f i ndi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s wer e l i kel y t o succeed on t he
mer i t s, t he cour t consi der ed t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he
or di nance. Though t he ci t y ar gued t hat adver se empl oyment
condi t i ons i n Wor cest er wer e a subst ant i al r eason t hat j ust i f i ed
t he di scr i mi nat i on, t he cour t coul d not accept t hat nonr esi dent
empl oyees on publ i c pr oj ect s wer e t he par t i cul ar sour ce of t he
ci t y s empl oyment i ssues. Id. at 119- 20. I n r ul i ng f or t he
pl ai nt i f f s, t he cour t al so consi der ed whet her t he l aw had cur ed
t he empl oyment pr obl ems i t was enact ed t o r emedy. Id. Si mi l ar
or di nances have al so been st r uck down i n Fal l Ri ver and Qui ncy,
Massachuset t s. See Merit Constr. Alliance V. City of Quincy,
No. 12- 10458, 2012 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 54210 ( D. Mass. Apr i l 18,
2012) ( f i ndi ng, on a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, t hat a
43

ci t y or di nance r equi r i ng t hat 33 per cent of empl oyees on publ i c
agency pr oj ect s be ci t y r esi dent s woul d vi ol at e t he Pr i vi l eges
and I mmuni t i es Cl ause despi t e t he ci t y s ar gument t hat ci t y
r esi dent s shoul d see a r et ur n on i nvest ment t hr ough j obs f r om
pr oj ect s t hat t hei r t ax dol l ar s wer e f undi ng) ; Util. Contractors
Assn of New England v. City of Fall River, No. 10994- RZW, 2011
U. S. Di st . LEXI S 114333 ( D. Mass. Oct . 4, 2011) ( hol di ng, i n
gr ant i ng a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on, t hat a ci t y
or di nance t hat r equi r ed 100 per cent of appr ent i ces and 50
per cent of al l ot her empl oyees on publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s be ci t y
r esi dent s woul d be i nval i d, especi al l y because t he ci t y had
of f er ed no j ust i f i cat i on f or t he cl assi f i cat i on) .
10


10
Pl ai nt i f f s al so ci t e t o Camden, i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t
r ever sed and r emanded a case i nvol vi ng a Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause chal l enge t o a muni ci pal or di nance pr ovi di ng
t hat at l east 40 per cent of t he empl oyees of cont r act or s and
subcont r act or s wor ki ng on ci t y f unded or admi ni st er ed pr oj ect s
be ci t y r esi dent s. 465 U. S. at 223. The ci t y of Camden ar gued
t hat t he or di nance was const i t ut i onal because i t was necessar y
t o count er act gr ave economi c and soci al i l l s, i ncl udi ng
unempl oyment , a decl i ne i n popul at i on, and a r educt i on i n t he
number of busi nesses l ocat ed i n t he ci t y. Id. at 222.
Accor di ng t o t he ci t y, t he par t i cul ar evi l t hat t he or di nance
was i nt ended t o addr ess was non- Camden r esi dent s empl oyed on
ci t y publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s. Id. The Cour t di d not i nval i dat e
t he st at ut e, but r emanded t he case f or f ur t her f act ual f i ndi ngs
because i t coul d not assess t he ci t y s j ust i f i cat i on on t he
r ecor d bef or e i t . Id. at 222- 23. I n r emandi ng t he case, t he
Camden Cour t emphasi zed t hat t he f act t hat Camden was expendi ng
i t s own f unds or f unds i t admi ni st er s i n accor dance wi t h t he
t er ms of a gr ant was per haps t he cr uci al f act or [ ] t o be
consi der ed i n eval uat i ng whet her t he st at ut e s di scr i mi nat i on
vi ol at es t he Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause. Id. at 221. I n
t he wake of Camden, one cour t has uphel d a r esi dence pr ef er ence
44

Si mi l ar l y, i n W.C.M. Window Co., Inc. v. Bernardi, a t hr ee
j udge panel of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t r ul ed t hat an I l l i noi s
r esi dence based cl assi f i cat i on vi ol at ed t he Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause. 730 F. 2d 486 ( 7t h Ci r . 1984) . The I l l i noi s
st at ut e r equi r ed t hat cont r act or s on publ i c wor ks pr oj ect s f or
t he st at e or muni ci pal i t i es empl oy I l l i noi s l abor er s. Id. at
489. Under t he l aw, an I l l i noi s l abor er was def i ned as any
wor ker who had been a r esi dent of t he st at e f or at l east one
year . Id. at 494. I n ar gui ng t he l aw was const i t ut i onal , t he
st at e f ai l ed t o pr ovi de any evi dence of t he benef i t s of t he
r esi dent i al pr ef er ence. Id. at 497- 98. The cour t t hus r ul ed
t hat because t he I l l i noi s l aw i mpl i cat ed a f undament al r i ght
pr ot ect ed by t he Cl ause, and because t he st at e had not sat i sf i ed
i t s bur den of j ust i f yi ng t he di scr i mi nat i on, t he l aw was f ound
t o be unconst i t ut i onal . Id. at 498.
These cases, whi l e i nst r uct i ve, si mpl y do not descr i be t he
si t uat i on pr esent ed her e. The f act t hat t he Di st r i ct i s t he
onl y j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he count r y t hat cannot t ax commut er s
11
put s

l aw as f ur t her i ng a st at e s i nt er est i n combat i ng unempl oyment
di spar i t i es. State v. Antonich, 694 P. 2d 60 ( Wy. 1985) ( hol di ng
t hat a st at e r esi dence pr ef er ence l aw nar r owl y addr essed t he
goal of r educi ng unempl oyment and t her ef or e di d not vi ol at e t he
Pr i vi l eges and I mmuni t i es Cl ause) .

11
The Supr eme Cour t r ecogni zed t he r i ght of one st at e t o t ax t he
i ncome of non- r esi dent s i n 1920 i n Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U. S.
37 ( 1920) . The Cour t hel d t hat a st at e may l evy a t ax on a
nonr esi dent who hol ds a j ob or oper at es a busi ness i n a st at e so
45

i t i n a uni que posi t i on compar ed t o ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons t hat
have enact ed si mi l ar l egi sl at i on, and i ndeed, i t i s a par t i cul ar
evi l t hat onl y t he Di st r i ct conf r ont s.
12
The Supr eme Cour t has
made cl ear t hat [ e] ver y i nqui r y under t he Pr i vi l eges and
I mmuni t i es Cl ause must . . . be conduct ed wi t h due r egar d f or
t he pr i nci pl e t hat t he st at es have consi der abl e l eeway i n
anal yzi ng l ocal evi l s and i n pr escr i bi ng appr opr i at e cur es,
especi al l y when a gover nment body i s mer el y set t i ng condi t i ons
on t he expendi t ur e of f unds i t cont r ol s. Camden, 465 U. S. at
222- 23 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see
also Hicklin, 437 U. S. at 529. The Di st r i ct s det er mi nat i on
t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s an appr opr i at e r esponse t o t he
uni que bur den pl aced on t he Di st r i ct by t he Congr essi onal l y-

l ong as t hat t ax i s no mor e oner ous t han t hat l evi ed on a st at e
r esi dent . Id. at 52. The Cour t r easoned t hat a non- r esi dent
had an obl i gat i on t o pay f or t he cost of t he st at e s gover nment ,
f r omwhi ch t he nonr esi dent der i ved a benef i t . Id. at 52- 53.
Fol l owi ng t he r ul e of Shaffer, ever y st at e i n t he count r y t hat
l evi es an i ncome t ax on i t s own ci t i zens i mposes a t ax on
nonr esi dent s who wor k or do busi ness i n t he st at e. See CCH
St at e Tax Gui de 15- 157. Some st at es have r eci pr ocal
agr eement s wi t h sur r oundi ng st at es wher eby each agr ees not t o
t ax t he i ncome of nonr esi dent s. Id.

12
Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he act ual sour ce of evi l t hat t he
Di st r i ct conf r ont s i s Congr ess and t he ban on a commut er t ax i n
t he Home Rul e Act . Whi l e t he Home Rul e Act may be t he l egal
sour ce of t he ban, t he ef f ect of t he ban i s onl y f el t when a
nonr esi dent hol ds a j ob i n t he Di st r i ct and car r i es t hat r evenue
back t o hi s or her home st at e.

46

i mposed commut er t ax ban i s t her ef or e ent i t l ed t o some
def er ence.
13

Thus, accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , t he i nabi l i t y t o i mpose a
commut er t ax i s Di st r i ct s uni que evi l ; however , t he Cour t must
det er mi ne whet her t he degr ee of di scr i mi nat i on bear s a cl ose
r el at i on t o t hat evi l . Camden, 465 U. S. at 222 ( quot i ng
Toomer, 334 U. S. at 398) . The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat i t cannot
t ax commut er s by t he t er ms of t he Home Rul e Act , r esul t i ng i n a
par t i cul ar l y acut e pr obl embecause appr oxi mat el y 70 per cent of
t he j obs i n t he Di st r i ct ar e hel d by commut er s. Def s. MTD at
22. The Di st r i ct al so ar gues t hat t he unempl oyment r at e i n t he
Di st r i ct exceeds t hat of sur r oundi ng j ur i sdi ct i ons and t he
count r y as a whol e as of August 2011, when t he amendment s t o
t he Act wer e bei ng consi der ed, t he unempl oyment r at e i n t he
Di st r i ct as a whol e was 11. 1 per cent . Commi t t ee Repor t at 3.
I n some war ds of t he ci t y, i t was as hi gh as 30 per cent . Id.

13
At or al ar gument , Pl ai nt i f f s ur ged t he Cour t t o deci de t hat
t he Di st r i ct cannot even det er mi ne what const i t ut es a l ocal evi l
f or t he pur poses of a pr i vi l eges and i mmuni t i es chal l enge.
Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, when Congr ess det er mi ned t hat t he
Di st r i ct coul d not enact a commut er t ax, i t appar ent l y
det er mi ned t hat t hi s ban was not a l ocal evi l as wel l . Whi l e
Congr ess may di ct at e much of what t he Di st r i ct may do, i t cannot
di ct at e whi ch pr obl ems t he Di st r i ct char act er i zes as most sever e
as l ocal evi l s. See Camden, 465 U. S. at 222; Toomer, 334 U. S.
at 396 ( expl ai ni ng t hat cour t s must gi ve due r egar d [ t o] t he
pr i nci pal [ si c] t hat t he St at es shoul d have consi der abl e l eeway
i n anal yzi ng l ocal evi l s and i n pr escr i bi ng appr opr i at e cur es) .


47

The unempl oyment r at e i n t he Washi ngt on met r opol i t an ar ea, by
cont r ast , was 5. 3 per cent i n May 2012. Def s. MTD at 7.
Accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , t hi s r esul t s i n a per manent
st r uct ur al i mbal ance i n t he budget , wher eby t her e i s a gap
bet ween t he cost of pr ovi di ng ser vi ces and i t s capaci t y t o r ai se
r evenue. Def s. MTD at 11 ( ci t i ng a GAO r epor t f r om2003) .
The Di st r i ct cl ai ms t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act was enact ed i n an
ef f or t t o r emedy t he ver y r eal , si gni f i cant , and wel l -
est abl i shed st r uct ur al i mbal ances i n t he Di st r i ct s budget , id.
at 12, pr esumabl y, by pl aci ng a modest t humb on t he scal e i n
f avor of Di st r i ct r esi dent s wi t h r espect t o hi r i ng i n a nar r ow
subset of t he Di st r i ct economy const r uct i on j obs f unded or
admi ni st er ed by t he Di st r i ct gover nment .
Whi l e t he Cour t coul d be per suaded t hat t he i nabi l i t y t o
l evy a commut er t ax coul d be a pecul i ar evi l t hat coul d j ust i f y
t he r esi dent i al pr ef er ence i n t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , t he Cour t
f i nds i t i mpossi bl e t o eval uat e t he [ Di st r i ct s] j ust i f i cat i on
on t he r ecor d as i t now st ands. Camden, 465 U. S. at 223; see
also Dynalantic Corp. v. Dept of Def., 503 F. Supp. 2d 262, 267
( D. D. C. 2007) ( denyi ng mot i ons f or summar y j udgment i n a case
eval uat i ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Smal l Busi ness
Associ at i on s set asi de pr ogr amf or smal l busi nesses owned and
cont r ol l ed by di sadvant aged i ndi vi dual s because t he par t i es had
not demonst r at ed whet her t he asser t ed compel l i ng gover nment
48

i nt er est had a st r ong basi s i n evi dence) . At t hi s st age i n t he
l i t i gat i on, t he Di st r i ct has not pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent subst ant i ve
evi dence f or t he Cour t t o det er mi ne whet her t he Fi r st Sour ce
Act s r esi dent i al hi r i ng pr ef er ences f or const r uct i on pr oj ect s
f undi ng i n whol e or i n par t by t he Di st r i ct ar e nar r owl y
t ai l or ed t o addr ess t he uni que evi l of t he Di st r i ct s i nabi l i t y
t o l evy a commut er t ax. Thi s i s a f act - i nt ensi ve i nqui r y t hat
cannot be r esol ved on a mot i on t o di smi ss - - t her e have been no
f i ndi ngs of f act made i n t hi s case, nor has t her e been any
di scover y and no decl ar at i ons have been f i l ed by anyone. And i t
woul d not be appr opr i at e f or t he Cour t t o make f act ual f i ndi ngs
or t ake j udi ci al not i ce of t he i mpact of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act at
t hi s j unct ur e. Thus, t he Di st r i ct s mot i on t o di smi ss
Pl ai nt i f f s pr i vi l eges and i mmuni t i es cl ai mi s her eby deni ed
wi t hout pr ej udi ce.
C. Commerce Clause
Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act vi ol at es
t he Commer ce Cl ause, whi ch i s an i mpl i ci t r est r ai nt on st at e
aut hor i t y, even i n t he absence of a conf l i ct i ng f eder al
st at ut e. United Haulers Assn v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste
Mgmt. Auth., 550 U. S. 330, 338 ( 2007) . Thi s r est r ai nt , known as
t he Dor mant Commer ce Cl ause, pr event s st at es f r omi nt er f er i ng
wi t h Congr ess s power t o r egul at e i nt er st at e commer ce. However ,
f or st at e act i on t o i mpl i cat e t he Dor mant Commer ce Cl ause, t he
49

act i on must t ake t he f or mof r egul at or y act i vi t y. Some cases
r un a di f f er ent cour se, however , and an except i on cover s St at es
t hat go beyond r egul at i on and t hemsel ves par t i cpat [ e] i n t he
mar ket so as t o exer ci s[ e] t he r i ght t o f avor [ t hei r ] own
ci t i zens over ot her s. Dept of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis, 553
U. S. 328, 339 ( 2008) ( quot i ng Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp.,
426 U. S. 794, 810 ( 1976) ) . Because [ t ] her e i s no i ndi cat i on of
a const i t ut i onal pl an t o l i mi t t he abi l i t y of St at es t hemsel ves
t o oper at e f r eel y i n t he f r ee mar ket , Reeves, Inc. v. Stake,
447 U. S. 429, 437 ( 1980) , t he Dor mant Commer ce Cl ause i s
i nappl i cabl e. [ W] hen a st at e or l ocal gover nment ent er s t he
mar ket as a par t i ci pant i t i s not subj ect t o t he r est r ai nt s of
t he Commer ce Cl ause. White v. Mass. Council of Constr. Emprs,
Inc., 460 U. S. 204, 208 ( 1983) , and t he st at e may pr ef er ence
l ocal i nt er est s. Thus, i n t hi s ki nd of case t her e i s a si ngl e
i nqui r y: whet her t he chal l enged pr ogr amconst i t ut e[ s] di r ect
st at e par t i ci pat i on i n t he mar ket . Id. ( quot i ng Reeves, 447
U. S. at 436 n. 7) .
The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l t o st at e a cl ai m
because t he Fi r st Sour ce Act does not vi ol at e t he Commer ce
Cl ause. Fi r st , t he Di st r i ct not es t hat t he Act onl y appl i es t o
pr oj ect s t hat ar e f unded, i n whol e or i n par t , or admi ni st er ed
by t he Di st r i ct . Thus, accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act does not appl y t o whol l y pr i vat e t r ansact i ons.
50

Def s. MTD at 26. Fur t her , t he Di st r i ct cont ends t hat t hr ough
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , i t i s act i ng as a mar ket par t i ci pant , not
a mar ket r egul at or . Thus, under Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , t he
Dor mant Commer ce Cl ause does not appl y. Id. Accor di ng t o t he
Di st r i ct , a st at e may act as a mar ket par t i ci pant even wher e i t
al so r egul at es t he r el evant mar ket . Id. at 27 ( ci t i ng Davis,
553 U. S. at 348) .
I n Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., t he Supr eme Cour t
f i r st ar t i cul at ed t he pr i nci pl e of a st at e as a mar ket
par t i ci pant f or t he pur poses of t he Dor mant Commer ce Cl ause.
426 U. S. 794 ( 1978) . Ther e, t he st at e of Mar yl and used i t s own
f unds t o encour age t he r emoval of aut omobi l e hul ks f r omst at e
st r eet s and j unkyar ds. Id. at 796- 97. The st at e event ual l y
amended t he bount y st at ut e t o r equi r e di f f er ent , mor e
cumber some, document at i on f r omout of st at e scr ap pr ocessor s
t han i n st at e pr ocessor s. Id. at 800- 01. The di st r i ct cour t
i nval i dat ed t he amendment on t he gr ounds t hat i t vi ol at ed t he
Commer ce Cl ause. The Supr eme Cour t r ever sed, f i r st not i ng t hat
Mar yl and was not r egul at i ng or pr ohi bi t i ng t he f l ow of
aut omobi l e hul ks, but was i nst ead ent er i ng t he mar ket t o bi d up
t hei r pr i ce. Id. at 806. The Cour t t hus hel d t hat t he st at e
was a mar ket par t i ci pant and t hat [ n] ot hi ng i n t he pur poses
ani mat i ng t he Commer ce Cl ause pr ohi bi t s a St at e, i n t he absence
of congr essi onal act i on, f r ompar t i ci pat i ng i n t he mar ket and
51

exer ci si ng t he r i ght t o f avor i t s own ci t i zens over t hei r s.
Id. at 810.
The Supr eme Cour t agai n addr essed t he mar ket par t i ci pant
except i on i n White. Ther e, t he Cour t consi der ed a Bost on ci t y
or di nance t hat r equi r ed t hat on al l const r uct i on pr oj ect s f unded
i n whol e or par t by ci t y f unds, or pr oj ect s t he ci t y
admi ni st er ed, at l east hal f of t he wor k f or ce be compr i sed of
ci t y r esi dent s. 460 U. S. 204 ( 1982) . The Cour t hel d t hat
[ i ] nsof ar as t he ci t y expended onl y i t s own f unds i n ent er i ng
i nt o const r uct i on cont r act s f or publ i c pr oj ect s, i t was a mar ket
par t i ci pant and ent i t l ed t o be t r eat ed as such. Id. at 214
( ci t i ng Hughes, 426 U. S. 784) . Ther ef or e, t he Dor mant Commer ce
Cl ause di d not appl y, and t he r egul at i on was a val i d exer ci se of
t he st at e s aut hor i t y. Id. at 214- 15.
The Di st r i ct ar gues t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s consi st ent
wi t h t hi s l i ne of cases, as t he Di st r i ct i s si mpl y f avor i ng t he
use of Di st r i ct l abor as a condi t i on of t he Di st r i ct s pur chase
of const r uct i on ser vi ces. Def s. MTD at 27. The r el evant
mar ket her e, accor di ng t o t he Di st r i ct , i s t he mar ket f or
const r uct i on ser vi ces, and i t i s i nsi st i ng on usi ng i t s own
r esi dent s. Thi s choi ce, t he Di st r i ct ar gues, does not vi ol at e
t he Commer ce Cl ause, nor does i t i mper mi ssi bl y bur den
i nt er st at e commer ce, as i t onl y af f ect s Di st r i ct pr oj ect s i n t he
Di st r i ct . Id. at 27- 28.
52

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act does vi ol at e t he
Commer ce Cl ause because, cont r ar y t o t he Di st r i ct s cl ai ms, t he
Di st r i ct i s act i ng as a mar ket r egul at or , not a mar ket
par t i ci pant . Pl s. Opp n at 22- 23. I n maki ng t hi s ar gument ,
Pl ai nt i f f s i gnor e t he bi ndi ng pr ecedent of Hughes, White, and
t hei r pr ogeny, and i nst ead f ocus on cases t hat ar e whol l y
i napposi t e. For i nst ance, Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act i s i nval i d because t he 2011 amendment s pr ovi de f or a
per i od of debar ment f or r epeat ed vi ol at i ons of t he Act .
Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e t o Wisconsin Dept of Indus. Labor and Human
Relations v. Gould, 475 U. S. 282 ( 1986) , f or t he pr oposi t i on
t hat t he mar ket par t i ci pant except i on does not appl y t o a st at e
st at ut e t hat pr ovi des f or debar ment . However , t he st at ut e at
i ssue i n Gould pr ovi ded f or debar ment f or r epeat of f ender s of
t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act , 29 U. S. C. 151 et seq., a
f eder al st at ut e t hat pr eempt ed t he conf l i ct i ng st at e st at ut e.
475 U. S. at 289- 90. Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e t o no cases t hat suppor t
t hei r posi t i on t hat t he Di st r i ct i s a mar ket r egul at or .
Despi t e t hei r best ef f or t s, Pl ai nt i f f s cannot cr edi bl y
di sput e t he f act t hat t he Di st r i ct i s act i ng as a mar ket
par t i ci pant wi t h r espect t o ci t y- f unded const r uct i on pr oj ect s.
The Fi r st Sour ce Act t hus pl ai nl y does not vi ol at e t he Commer ce
Cl ause. See Shayne Bros., Inc. v. District of Columbia, 592 F.
Supp. 1128, 1133- 34 ( hol di ng t hat a Di st r i ct st at ut e r egar di ng
53

sol i d wast e di sposal t hat pr ef er enced Di st r i ct wast e pr ovi der s
and pr ovi ded f or per i od of debar ment af t er vi ol at i ons was not a
vi ol at i on of t he Commer ce Cl ause) . Accor di ngl y, Def endant s
mot i on t o di smi ss Pl ai nt i f f s Commer ce Cl ause cl ai mi s gr ant ed.
D. Equal Protection Clause
14

The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause pr ovi des a basi s f or
chal l engi ng l egi sl at i ve cl assi f i cat i ons t hat t r eat one gr oup of
per sons as i nf er i or or super i or t o ot her s, and f or cont endi ng
t hat gener al r ul es ar e bei ng appl i ed i n an ar bi t r ar y or
di scr i mi nat or y way. Jones v. Helms, 452 U. S. 412, 423- 24
( 1981) . Accor di ngl y, cour t s appl y st r i ct scr ut i ny when t he
chal l enged cl assi f i cat i on j eopar di zes t he exer ci se of a
f undament al r i ght or cat egor i zes i ndi vi dual s on t he basi s of an
i nher ent l y suspect char act er i st i c such as r ace, al i enage, or
nat i onal or i gi n. See Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541, 546
( 1999) ; Banner v. United States, 428 F. 3d 303, 307 ( D. C. Ci r .
2005) . However , i f a l aw nei t her bur dens a f undament al r i ght
nor t ar get s a suspect cl ass, i t wi l l be uphel d so l ong as i t
bear s a r at i onal r el at i on t o some l egi t i mat e end. Romer v.
Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 631 ( 1996) ; Hettinga v. United States, 677

14
The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment
appl i es onl y t o t he st at es. Al t hough t he Fi f t h Amendment , whi ch
does appl y t o t he Di st r i ct , does not cont ai n an equal pr ot ect i on
component , t he Supr eme Cour t has hel d t hat t he Due Pr ocess
Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment does cont ai n one and t hat i t
appl i es t o t he Di st r i ct . Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 499
( 1954) .
54

F. 3d 471, 478 ( D. C. Ci r . 2012) ( A st at ut or y cl assi f i cat i on t hat
nei t her pr oceeds al ong suspect l i nes nor i nf r i nges f undament al
const i t ut i onal r i ght s must be uphel d agai nst equal pr ot ect i on
chal l enge i f t her e i s any r easonabl y concei vabl e st at e of f act s
t hat coul d pr ovi de a r at i onal basi s f or t he cl assi f i cat i on. )
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . Rat i onal
basi s r evi ew i s t hus hi ghl y def er ent i al , Calloway v. District
of Columbia, 216 F. 3d 1, 9 ( D. C. Ci r . 2000) , and i t i s not a
l i cense f or cour t s t o j udge t he wi sdom, f ai r ness, or l ogi c of
l egi sl at i ve choi ces, Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 ( 1993) .
Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t hey have st at ed an Equal
Pr ot ect i on cl ai mbecause t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i mper mi ssi bl y
di scr i mi nat es agai nst t he I ndi vi dual Pl ai nt i f f s who do not
r esi de i n t he Di st r i ct . They ar e t her ef or e t r eat ed di f f er ent l y
t han si mi l ar l y si t uat ed i ndi vi dual s on t he basi s of t hei r st at e
of r esi dency. Compl . 106; Pl s. Opp n at 25- 26. Pl ai nt i f f s
concede t hat such a cl assi f i cat i on, based on st at e of r esi dency,
shoul d be scr ut i ni zed under r at i onal basi s r evi ew. Compl .
107; see Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. at 319- 20 ( expl ai ni ng t hat a
cl assi f i cat i on nei t her i nvol vi ng f undament al r i ght s nor
pr oceedi ng al ong suspect l i nes . . . cannot r un af oul of t he
Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause i f t her e i s a r at i onal r el at i onshi p
bet ween t he di spar i t y of t r eat ment and some l egi t i mat e
gover nment al pur pose) .
55

Pl ai nt i f f s make no r eal ef f or t t o def end t hei r Equal
Pr ot ect i on cl ai m. I n t hei r opposi t i on, t hey st at e onl y t hat
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act does not pr ovi de a r at i onal basi s f or
t r eat i ng nonr esi dent empl oyer s and empl oyees di f f er ent l y t han
r esi dent empl oyer s and empl oyees. Pl s. Opp n at 24. They
al so ar gue t hat t he Di st r i ct i ncor r ect l y r el i es on Banner, but
f ai l t o expl ai n how. Id. at 25- 26. These concl usor y
al l egat i ons ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss.
The Di st r i ct i s cor r ect t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot st at e an
Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai mbecause t hey cannot over come t he
pr esumpt i on of r at i onal i t y. Def s. MTD at 31. As t he Di st r i ct
poi nt s out , r esi dent pr ef er ences si mi l ar t o t hose embodi ed i n
t he Fi r st Sour ce Act have been uphel d by ot her cour t s. Id.
( ci t i ng Chance Mgmt., Inc. v. South Dakota, 97 F. 3d 1107, 1115
( 8t h Ci r . 1996) ( appl yi ng r at i onal basi s r evi ew and uphol di ng a
r esi dency r equi r ement f or obt ai ni ng a l i cense as a vi deo l ot t er y
machi ne oper at or and expl ai ni ng t hat t he st at e has a l egi t i mat e
i nt er est i n i nsur i ng t hat t he st at e s subst ant i al i nvest ment i n
i t s vi deo l ot t er y busi ness ul t i mat el y benef i t s t he Sout h Dakot a
t axpayer s. The l egi sl at ur e coul d have r at i onal l y concl uded t hat
a r esi dency r equi r ement woul d f ur t her t hi s i nt er est ) ; Smith
Setzer & Sons, Inc. v. S.C. Procurement Review Panel, 20 F. 3d
1311, 1322- 24 ( 4t h Ci r . 1994) ( af f i r mi ng t he deci si on of a
di st r i ct cour t sust ai ni ng t wo Sout h Car ol i na st at ut es t hat
56

pr ovi ded f or r esi dent pr ef er ences r equi r i ng t hat st at e
educat i onal and admi ni st r at i ve bodi es pur chase Sout h Car ol i na
goods i f avai l abl e because t he st at ut e was r at i onal l y r el at ed t o
t he st at e s i nt er est i n channel l i ng t ax dol l ar s back i nt o t he
communi t y) ; Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. City
and Cnty of San Francisco, 813 F. 2d 922, 943 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987)
( uphol di ng a ci t y and count y or di nance t hat gave pr ef er ence t o
l ocal l y owned busi nesses) overruled in other part by City of
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469 ( 1989) ) .
Thus, t he Cour t gr ant s Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss wi t h
r espect t o Pl ai nt i f f s Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai m; t he Di st r i ct s
goal of di r ect i ng l ocal f unds t o l ocal r esi dent s i s r at i onal l y
r el at ed t o t he means used by t he Act .
E. First Amendment
The Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect s agai nst compel l ed speech i n
t wo di st i nct ar eas: t r ue compel l ed- speech cases, i n whi ch an
i ndi vi dual [ or ent i t y] i s obl i ged [ ] t o expr ess a message he
di sagr ees wi t h, i mposed by t he gover nment ; and compel l ed-
subsi dy cases, i n whi ch an i ndi vi dual [ or ent i t y] i s r equi r ed
by t he gover nment t o subsi di ze a message he di sagr ees wi t h.
Johanns v. Livestock Mktg Assn, 544 U. S. 550, 557 ( 2005) .
Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act vi ol at es t hei r
r i ght t o f r ee speech under t he Fi r st Amendment because i t
compel [ s] t hemt o expr ess suppor t f or t he goal s of t he Act .
57

Compl . 112. Accor di ng t o t he Cor por at e Pl ai nt i f f s, t he Fi r st
Sour ce Act f or ces t hemt o engage i n speech, such as
compel l i ng t hemt o pl an f or and adopt pol i ci es and pr ovi de
det ai l ed r epor t s on t hei r empl oyees and on t hei r busi ness
pr act i ces sol el y on t he basi s of t he r esi dence of t hose
empl oyees. Pl s. Opp n at 27. They ar e al so r equi r ed t o
submi t empl oyment pl ans t o t he Di st r i ct t hat ar e cont r ar y t o
t hei r i ndi vi dual mer i t empl oyment phi l osophy and t o post var i ous
i nf or mat i on r egar di ng j obs on Di st r i ct and newspaper websi t es.
Id. As a r esul t , t hey ar gue t hat t hey ar e r equi r ed not mer el y
t o f und gover nment speech, but t o t hemsel ves adopt , pr omot e, and
be i dent i f i ed wi t h i t such t hat t he speech on t he i ssue of
r esi dence and who shoul d get j obs i s at t r i but ed t o t hem. Id.
However , despi t e t hese ar gument s, i t i s cl ear t hat t he
Fi r st Sour ce Act does not r equi r e Pl ai nt i f f s t o speak, i n a
l i t er al sense. They r emai n f r ee t o expr ess t hei r vi ews opposi ng
t he Act . The speech t hat t hey ar gue t hey ar e compel l ed t o
engage i n i s i nci dent al t o t he Fi r st Sour ce Act s r egul at i on of
t hei r conduct . I ndeed, i t has never been deemed an abr i dgment
of f r eedomof speech or pr ess t o make a cour se of conduct
i l l egal mer el y because t he conduct was i n par t i ni t i at ed,
evi denced, or car r i ed out by means of l anguage, ei t her spoken,
wr i t t en, or pr i nt ed. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic &
Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR), 547 U. S. 47, 62 ( 2006)
58

( quot i ng Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 502
( 1949) ) . I n FAIR, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat speech compel l i ng
a l aw school t o send out emai l s i nf or mi ng st udent s of mi l i t ar y
r ecr ui t i ng on campus di d not vi ol at e t he Fi r st Amendment and
t hat such speech was f undament al l y di f f er ent f r om
unconst i t ut i onal compel l ed speech, such as f or ci ng a st udent t o
pl edge al l egi ance. Id. Si mi l ar l y, t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , whi ch
does not di ct at e t he conduct of t he speech, does not vi ol at e t he
Fi r st Amendment .
F. Due Process
1. Voi d f or Vagueness
[ T] he voi d f or vagueness doct r i ne addr esses at l east t wo
connect ed but di scr et e due pr ocess concer ns: f i r st , t hat
r egul at ed par t i es shoul d know what i s r equi r ed of t hemso t hey
may act accor di ngl y; second, pr eci si on and gui dance ar e
necessar y so t hat t hose enf or ci ng t he l aw do not act i n an
ar bi t r ar y or di scr i mi nat or y way. FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct . 2307, 2317 ( 2012) . A l aw i s
unconst i t ut i onal l y vague i f i t f ai l s t o pr ovi de a per son of
or di nar y i nt el l i gence f ai r not i ce of what i s pr ohi bi t ed, or i s
so st andar dl ess t hat i t aut hor i zes or encour ages ser i ousl y
di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement . United States v. Williams, 553
U. S. 285, 304 ( 2008) . The vagueness doct r i ne does not r equi r e
per f ect cl ar i t y and pr eci se gui dance. Ward v. Rock Against
59

Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 794 ( 1989) . Regul at i ons cannot , i n
r eason, def i ne pr oscr i bed behavi or exhaust i vel y or wi t h
consummat e pr eci si on. United States v. Thomas, 864 F. 2d 188,
195 ( D. C. Ci r . 1988) .
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s vague because
i t gi ves unf et t er ed di scr et i on t o t he Mayor t o gr ant var i ous
wai ver s, r equi r e al t er nat i ves t o const r uct i on cont r act s, and
deci de what f i nes t o i mpose. Pl s. Opp n at 30. Accor di ng t o
Pl ai nt i f f s, t he l anguage of t he st at ut e i s f at al because i t
st at es t hat exempt i ons can be made [ w] henever t he Mayor
det er mi ne[ s] t hat such an exempt i on i s necessar y. Id. Thi s
di scr et i on, Pl ai nt i f f s cont end, i s not due t o mer e i mpr eci si on
i n l anguage, but r at her i s t he r esul t of i nt ent i onal l y and
unl awf ul l y del egat i ng t o t he Mayor t he aut hor i t y t o pr eempt
ent i r e sect i ons of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act . Id.
Pl ai nt i f f s vagueness chal l enge t o t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s
si mpl y a gar den- var i et y cl ai mof uncer t ai nt y as t o how t he l aw
wi l l be enf or ced. Def s. MTD at 34. Whi l e t he st at ut e gr ant s
aut hor i t y t o t he Mayor t o gr ant wai ver s, i t pr ovi des obj ect i ve
gui del i nes f or t he gr ant i ng of t hose wai ver s. See D. C. Code
2- 219. 03( e) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) - ( A) ( i i i ) ( expl ai ni ng t hat a wai ver i s
avai l abl e i f ( 1) DOES has cer t i f i ed t hat t he benef i ci ar y made a
good f ai t h ef f or t t o compl y; ( 2) t he benef i ci ar y i s l ocat ed
out si de t he ar ea; none of t he wor k i s per f or med i n t he ar ea; t he
60

benef i ci ar y publ i shed each avai l abl e j ob i n a ci t y- wi de
newspaper f or 7 cal endar days and DOES cer t i f i es t hat t her e ar e
not enough appl i cant s f r omt he Fi r st Sour ce Regi st er f or t he
j ob; or t he el i gi bl e appl i cant s ar e not avai l abl e f or par t - t i me
wor k or do not have t he means t o t r avel t o t he j ob si t e; or ( 3)
t he benef i ci ar y ent er s i nt o wor kf or ce devel opment t r ai ni ng or
pl acement ar r angement wi t h DOES) . When t he sect i on of t he
st at ut e r egar di ng t he f act t hat t he Mayor can gr ant a wai ver i s
r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h t he sect i on of t he st at ut e pr ovi di ng
f or st andar ds by whi ch wai ver s ar e gr ant ed, i t i s cl ear t hat t he
st at ut e i s not vague. See Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 741 F. Supp. 2d 27, 40 ( D. D. C. 2010) ( hol di ng t hat
a por t i on of a st at ut e chal l enged as vague must be r ead i n
cont ext ) . I t i s si mpl y common sense t hat [ of f i ci al s] must use
some di scr et i on i n deci di ng when and wher e t o enf or ce ci t y
or di nances. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. 748, 761
( 2005) . The Fi r st Sour ce Act , cont r ar y t o Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms,
does not l i nk whol l y subj ect i ve j udgment s wi t hout st at ut or y
def i ni t i ons, nar r owi ng cont ext , or set t l ed l egal meani ngs.
Williams, 553 U. S. at 306.
The Due Pr ocess Cl ause does not pr event of f i ci al s f r om
exer ci si ng di scr et i on at al l , but r at her i t pr event s of f i ci al s
f r omexer ci si ng di scr et i on wi t h no cl ear obj ect i ve or st andar d.
See Armstrong v. D.C. Pub. Library, 154 F. Supp. 2d 67, 80- 82
61

( hol di ng t hat a Di st r i ct r egul at i on t hat bar r ed ent r y t o publ i c
l i br ar i es based on t he appear ance of ent r ant s and al l owed
l i br ar y per sonnel t o deny ent r ance t o pot ent i al pat r ons wi t h an
obj ect i onabl e appear ance, but pr ovi di ng no gui del i nes f or t he
exer ci se of t hat di scr et i on by l i br ar y of f i ci al s, was voi d f or
vagueness and t hus i nval i d under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause) .
Pl ai nt i f f s r eadi ng of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause woul d r ender ci t y
of f i ci al s i ncapabl e of exer ci si ng any di scr et i on. Because t he
Mayor has expl i ci t gui del i nes [ ] t o avoi d ar bi t r ar y and
di scr i mi nat or y enf or cement of t he Fi r st Sour ce Act , i t i s not
unconst i t ut i onal . Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States, 631 F. 2d
1030, 1035 ( D. C. Ci r . 1980) .
2. Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess
Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t hei r Compl ai nt set s f or t h
f act ual al l egat i ons t hat est abl i sh t he vi ol at i on of t hei r
subst ant i ve due pr ocess r i ght s under t he Const i t ut i on. Pl s.
Opp n at 31. However , apar t f r omt hi s st at ement i n t hei r
opposi t i on, and t hr ee par agr aphs i n t hei r Compl ai nt al l egi ng
t hat t he Fi r st Sour ce Act i s over br oad, bur dens const i t ut i onal l y
pr ot ect ed conduct , and appl i es r et r oact i vel y, Pl ai nt i f f s do not
expl ai n how t hei r Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess r i ght s ar e vi ol at ed.
Compl . 118- 120. Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege a vi ol at i on of
Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess i n t hei r compl ai nt , t hey onl y ci t e cases
t hat r el at e t o Pr ocedur al Due Pr ocess i n t hei r opposi t i on t o
62

Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss. Thus, t hey have pr ovi ded no
basi s, concl usor y or ot her wi se, f or t hei r cl ai m. Pl ai nt i f f s
conf used al l egat i ons ar e si mpl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m.
To t he ext ent t hat Pl ai nt i f f s do at t empt t o st at e a cl ai m
f or a vi ol at i on of Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess, t hey have f ai l ed.
Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess const r ai ns gover nment conduct t hat i s
so egr egi ous, so out r ageous, t hat i t may f ai r l y be sai d t o
shock t he cont empor ar y consci ence. Cnty. of Sacramento v.
Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 847 n. 8 ( 1998) . I n t hi s Ci r cui t ,
Subst ant i ve Due Pr ocess nor mal l y i mposes onl y ver y sl i ght
bur dens on t he gover nment t o j ust i f y i t s act i ons. . . . George
Washington Univ. v. District of Columbia, 318 F. 3d 203, 206
( D. C. Ci r . 2003) . The Fi r st Sour ce Act i s si mpl y not t he t ype
of egr egi ous gover nment conduct t hat i s bar r ed by Subst ant i ve
Due Pr ocess. See Silverman v. Barry, 845 F. 2d 1072, 1080 ( D. C.
Ci r . 1988) ( hol di ng t hat t o show unf ai r ness t hat vi ol at es t he
subst ant i ve component of t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause, a pl ai nt i f f
must show a subst ant i al i nf r i ngement of st at e l aw pr ompt ed by
per sonal or gr oup ani mus, or a del i ber at e f l out i ng of t he l aw
t hat t r ammel s si gni f i cant per sonal or pr oper t y r i ght s) .
G. Contracts Clause
Ar t i cl e I , 10 of t he Const i t ut i on pr ovi des i n per t i nent
par t t hat [ n] o st at e shal l . . . pass any . . . l aw i mpai r i ng
t he Obl i gat i on of Cont r act s. Washington Serv. Contractors
63

Coal. v. District of Columbia, 54 F. 3d 811, 818 ( D. C. Ci r .
1995) . A l aw t hat subst ant i al l y i mpai r s cont r act ual
r el at i onshi ps i s t hus i nval i d i f t he i mpai r ment t o t he
cont r act ual r el at i onshi p i s subst ant i al . Id. ( ci t i ng Allied
Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U. S. 234, 244 ( 1978) and
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U. S. 181, 186 ( 1992) ) .
Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai mpur suant t o t he
Cont r act s Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on. They al l ege t hat t he
Amended Act has t he ef f ect of r ewr i t i ng t hose cont r act s t o
i ncl ude l at er - enact ed l i mi t at i ons r egar di ng hi r i ng, and
r epor t i ng. Compl . 128. They do not i dent i f y whi ch cont r act s
woul d be i mpai r ed, onl y t hat some hypot het i cal cont r act s t hat
some Pl ai nt i f f i s a par t y t o wi l l be i mpact ed.
15
That i s not
suf f i ci ent t o st at e a cl ai m.
IV. Conclusion
For t he r easons st at ed above, t he Cour t GRANTS Def endant s
mot i on t o di smi ss and di smi sses Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt wi t h
pr ej udi ce. A separ at e or der accompani es t hi s memor andum
opi ni on.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
July 14, 2014


15
At t he or al ar gument on J une 25, 2014, Pl ai nt i f f s al so
conceded t hat t he Amended Act di d not appl y r et r oact i vel y.