E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
In this declaratory judgment action, the State of Texas appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Texas’s complaint seeks a declaration that an Enforcement Guidance document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding the hiring of persons with criminal backgrounds violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. The EEOC has instigated no legal proceedings against the State of Texas regarding the subject of felony hiring bans and Title VII.
This appeal requires the court to address only the threshold issues of justicia-bility and subject matter jurisdiction under both Article III and the APA. In dismissing Texas’s complaint, the district court held that Texas lacked Article III standing to bring this action because Texas could not show a substantial likelihood of harm, noting that although the EEOC had the statutory authority to investigate Title VII charges against Texas, it had no authority to bring an enforcement action against the State, that authority belonging only to the ■ Attorney General of the United States. The district court further asserted that Texas’s challenge to the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance was unripe, and that, in any event, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the APA claim because the EEOC’s Guidance did not constitute “final agency action” under 5 U.S.C. § 704.
Although the parties conflate the issues of standing, ripeness, and “final agency action” under the APA, Texas essentially argues that it has standing because it is an object of the challenged EEOC Guidance, and that the Guidance is a “final agency action” because it creates legal consequences for Texas and all other employers. Texas asserts that the Guidance implements a mandatory regulatory framework for employers and EEOC staff to follow, and that the Guidance purports to preempt Texas state law. In response, the EEOC argues that the Guidance is purely advisory, and thus does not create an actual [376]*376injury sufficient to confer standing. The EEOC further contends that, because it cannot bring an enforcement action against Texas directly, the Guidance is not a “final agency action” under the APA. In making this argument regarding “final agency action,” the EEOC relies heavily on several recent decisions from this circuit. The EEOC’s arguments regarding ripeness overlap with its arguments regarding a lack of finality, as the EEOC essentially contends that Texas’s challenge to the Guidance is unripe until Texas faces a more certain threat of enforcement.
After full briefing and argument, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND this action for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I.
Although this appeal presents only a jurisdictional issue, this action ultimately seeks to question whether a bar on hiring felons constitutes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer:
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge' any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
Texas employs hundreds of thousands of people across various state agencies. Many of these state agencies do not hire convicted felons, felons convicted of particular categories of felonies, or, in some cases, individuals convicted of particular misdemeanors. The sources of these bans stem from both Texas state statutes and longstanding employment policies adopted by the agencies. According to Texas, its agencies apply the hiring bars neutrally “to all job applicants, without regard to their races.” Where these exclusions exist, however, Texas applies them categorically and does not undertake an individualized assessment into the nature of the prospective employee’s conviction.
Although the EEOC enforces Title VII, its enforcement power is limited in a number of respects that are relevant to this appeal. First, the EEOC has only the limited regulatory authority “to issue, amend, or rescind suitable procedural regulations to carry out the provisions of this subchap-ter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-12(a). In other words, the EEOC cannot promulgate binding. substantive interpretations of Title VII. Second, the EEOC lacks the authority to file an enforcement action against a state employer directly. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). The EEOC does, however, have the power to investigate state employers for potential Title VII violations. The EEOC refers any case for which it finds reasonable cause to believe a Title VII violation occurred to the Attorney General of the United States, who then decides whether to bring enforcement action against the state. Id.
Notwithstanding its limitation to only formulating procedural rules, the EEOC holds and advances the view, as expressed through its policy statements, that categorical bans on the hiring of felons can constitute a violation of Title VII when they disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics. In 2012, the EEOC issued the “Enforcement Guidance on the Consider[377]*377ation of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (the “Enforcement Guidance” or the “Guidance”), which is at issue in this suit. The Enforcement Guidance provides that
[w]ith respect to criminal records, there is Title VII disparate impact liability where the evidence shows that a covered employer’s criminal record screening policy or practice disproportionately screens out a Title VII-proteeted group and the employer does not demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity.
The Guidance then sets out a framework for addressing both whether a hiring policy screens out a Title VII-proteeted group and whether a policy is “consistent with business necessity.” On the first prong, the Guidance lays out various criteria that the EEOC will use to determine whether a hiring policy has a disparate impact, and asserts that an employer’s evidence of a racially balanced workforce “will not be enough to disprove disparate impact.” On the second prong, the Guidance addresses the “job-related, business necessity” defense by offering employers the details of a screening policy that creates a disparate impact, but nonetheless complies with Title VII because it is narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate business need.
Texas filed suit on November 4, 2013, and filed its amended complaint on March 14, 2014. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Enforcement Guidance is, in effect, a binding substantive interpretation of Title VII and thus violates the APA. The EEOC moved to dismiss the amended complaint on three jurisdictional grounds: (1) standing; (2) ripeness; and (3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the APA. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. Although the district court’s opinion cites all three grounds as independent bases for dismissal, the district court addressed only in passing the issues of ripeness and jurisdiction under the APA, and emphasized the lack of Article III standing. Texas filed a timely appeal.
II.
First, we consider whether Texas has Article III standing.1 Texas can satisfy the constitutional elements of standing by “presenting] (l) an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and (3) redressable by a judgment in [Texas’s] favor.” Duarte ex rel. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 759 F.3d 514, 517 (5th Cir. 2014). A plaintiff must support each standing element “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations concerning standing. Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Tex. Med. Bd., 627 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2010). The court reviews de novo a district court’s determination of standing. Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 779 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2015). [378]*378Furthermore, because Texas is bringing this action in its capacity as a sovereign state being pressured to reevaluate state law or incur substantial costs, it “is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis.” Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 520, 127 S.Ct. 1438.
Our discussion here begins with “a basic question that underlies all three elements of standing — ‘whether the plaintiff is [itself] an object’ ” of the challenged agency “rule.” Contender Farms, 779 F.3d at 264 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130). If a plaintiff can establish that it is an “object” of the agency regulation at issue, “there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused [the plaintiff] injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130. “[Wjhether someone is in fact an object of a regulation is a flexible inquiry rooted in common sense.” See Contender Farms, 779 F.3d at 265.
We have no question but that Texas is an “object” of the challenged Enforcement Guidance, which, as we shall later see more fully, has a regulatory effect on employers. With the narrow exception of some federal agency employers, the Guidance purports to apply to all employers (including state agencies) that conduct criminal background checks as part of their hiring process. Indeed, the EEOC effectively concedes that Texas— or any other employer subject to Title VII, for that matter — is an object of the Guidance at issue, but nevertheless argues that Texas lacks standing to mount a legal challenge to the Enforcement Guidance because, being purely advisory, the Guidance does not impose any obligations on Texas or expose it to any legal consequences. In making this argument, the EEOC erroneously conflates the question of standing under Article III with the question of “final agency action” under the APA. Although the two inquiries may engage similar concerns, constitutional standing analysis is ultimately separate from the question of whether “final agency action” exists within the meaning of § 704 of the APA. See, e.g., Holistic Candler s and Consumers Ass’n v. Food & Drug Admin., 664 F.3d 940, 943-45 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (concluding that the plaintiffs established constitutional standing, but nonetheless finding that the plaintiffs failed to show “final agency action” under the APA); see also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (noting that constitutional standing and “final agency action” are separate inquires).
As Texas is an object of the Guidance at issue, there is no reason to deviate from the presumption that Texas has constitutional standing to challenge it. The district court found that Texas lacked an injury sufficiently concrete and imminent to confer standing because Texas did not allege that any enforcement action had been filed against it by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). An enforcement action is not, however, the only injury sufficient to confer constitutional standing upon Texas. Texas alleges several injuries that it is currently suffering because of the Guidance. First, Texas asserts that the Guidance imposes a mandatory scheme for employers regarding hiring policies. If we take these allegations as true, the Enforcement Guidance amounts to an increased regulatory burden on Texas as an employer, and “[a]n increased regulatory burden typically satisfies the injury in fact requirement.” See Contender Farms, 779 F.3d at 266 (citing Ass’n of Am. R.R.s v. Dep’t of Transp., 38 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).2
[379]*379Texas further asserts that the Enforcement Guidance effectively preempts state laws that bar employee-applicants with certain criminal histories from being considered for specific jobs, such as school teachers or state law enforcement officers. Regardless of whether the Guidance actually preempts Texas’s laws regarding hiring bans, the Guidance does, at the very least, force Texas to undergo an analysis, agency by agency, regarding whether the certainty of EEOC investigations stemming from the Enforcement Guidance’s standards overrides the State’s interest in not hiring felons for certain jobs.3 Putting aside the question of whether these practical injuries transform the Guidance into “final agency action” for the purposes of APA jurisdiction, these injuries are sufficient to confer constitutional standing, especially when considering Texas’s unique position as a sovereign state defending its existing practices and threatened authority. See Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 749 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding, in the context of an appeal of a denial of a stay, that the government failed to make a showing that Texas lacked standing to challenge another federal agency’s action when, as a result of that action, Texas faced a “forced choice between incurring costs and changing its laws”).4 As this court has stated before, “being pressured to change state law constitutes an injury” for the purpose of state standing analysis. Id.; see also Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d at 156-57 (concluding that Texas had standing to challenge agency action even when it could avoid financial harm by changing its own laws and practices, and asserting that “[sjtates have a sovereign interest in the power to create and enforce a legal code, and the possibility that a plaintiff could avoid injury by incurring other costs does not negate standing” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
[380]*380In sum, the district court erred; Texas has constitutional standing to challenge the Enforcement Guidance under the APA. Texas has standing because it is an object of the Guidance and, taking the complaint’s allegations as true, has alleged a sufficient injury in fact, that is that the Guidance forces Texas to alter its hiring policies or incur significant costs. The court now turns to whether the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance is a “final agency action” under the APA.
III.
The APA provides that “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. An aggrieved party is entitled to seek this review, however, only if the agency action is “made reviewable by statute” or, relevant to this appeal, whether the action is “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” Id. § 704. In this circuit, the “final agency action” requirement is a jurisdictional threshold, not a merits inquiry. See Peoples Nat’l Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2004) (“If there is no ‘final agency action,’ a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” (citing Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Herman, 176 F.3d 283, 287 (5th Cir. 1999))).
An administrative action is “final agency action” under the APA if: (1) the agency’s action is the “consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking process;” and (2) “the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 177-78, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating whether a challenged agency action meets these two conditions, this court is guided by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the APA’s finality requirement as ‘flexible’ and ‘pragmatic.’ ” Qureshi v. Holder, 663 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149-50, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)). The standard of review is de novo. Id. at 780. The parties do not appear to contest that the Enforcement Guidance is the “consummation” of the EEOC’s decisionmaking process. Thus, this appeal turns on the second prong of the Bennett test, and the court must determine whether the EEOC Guidance constitutes an agency action “by which rights or obligations have been determined,” or, in the alternative, “from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 178,117 S.Ct. 1154.
A.
The EEOC contends that the Guidance does not create “legal consequences” because the EEOC lacks the authority to bring an enforcement action against Texas directly; that is, it can only refer a case to the U.S. Attorney General for prosecution following an EEOC investigation. Texas, however, asserts that the Guidance creates legal consequences that go beyond the mere threat of investigation and agency referral. Specifically, Texas argues that the Guidance itself creates legal consequences because it binds EEOC staff to a specific course of action, and asserts that an employer who adheres to one of the Guidance’s two “safe harbor” provisions will avoid a finding of liability before the EEOC, and thus will avoid DOJ referral and enforcement. See Cohen v. United States, 578 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“When ‘the language of the [agency] document is such that private parties can rely on it as a norm or safe harbor by which to shape their actions, it can be binding as a [381]*381practical matter.’ ” (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 290 F.3d 377, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), vacated in part on other grounds, 599 F.3d 652 (D.C. Cir. 2010)); see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016) (stating that an agency action creates “legal consequences” when it “narrows the field of potential plaintiffs and limits the potential liability” that a regulated entity faces).
The alleged safe harbor provisions read as follows:
Two circumstances in which the Commission believes employers will consistently meet the “job related and consistent with business necessity” defense are as follows:
• The employer validates the criminal conduct screen for the position in question per the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Uniform Guidelines) standards (if data about criminal conduct as related to subsequent work performance is available and such validation is possible); or
• The employer develops a targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job (the three Green factors), and then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for people excluded by the screen to determine whether the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity.
The Enforcement Guidance clarifies what sort of individualized assessment is required by the second provision,5 providing that such an assessment
would consist of notice to the individual that he has been screened out because of a criminal conviction; an opportunity for the individual to demonstrate that the exclusion should not be applied due to his particular circumstances; and consideration by the employer as to whether the additional information provided by the individual warrants an exception to the exclusion....
Reviewing the parties’ arguments, we find that the Guidance imposes “legal consequences” in the sense that the EEOC has committed itself to applying the Guidance when conducting enforcement and referral actions; in particular, the Guidance suggests that its provisions are to be taken as conclusive, and offers only two escapes from an adverse EEOC determination. Moreover, the promulgation of the Guidance is an agency action by which “rights and obligations” have been determined: the agency has committed itself to following the Guidance, and has assured employers that if they conform their conduct to the Guidance’s “safe harbor” requirements, they will not be deemed to be in violation of Title VII by EEOC investigators. Such an exoneration by EEOC investigators would, in turn, ensure that Texas is protected from referral of its case to the U.S. Attorney General for prosecution, and, ultimately, from a potential finding of injunctive and/or monetary liability in a DOJ-led prosecution.
In defending the Guidance against the scrutiny of the federal courts, the EEOC comes down hard and often on the mantra that the Guidance is not final agency action because the EEOC cannot directly bring an enforcement action against Texas, since only the U.S. Attorney General can enforce Title VII against a sovereign state. [382]*382But the Guidance is not simply limited to one or only a few investigations conducted by the EEOC against Texas or some other state. Instead, it is a blanket policy that the EEOC has committed itself to applying with respect to virtually all public and private employers.6 The EEOC does not dispute that, as a general matter, agency “guidance” that cabins an agency’s discretion with respect to enforcement actions can be considered “final agency action.” Holding that the Guidance is not “final agency action” simply because the EEOC cannot bring an enforcement action against Texas directly would stand for the proposition that whether a blanket agency rule is “final agency action” turns on the identity of the class of plaintiffs, instead of the nature, character, and effect of the rule in and of itself. In other words, to hold that the Guidance is not “final agency action” solely because of the EEOC’s limited enforcement authority with respect to a state employer is essentially to hold that there is no rule-related EEOC action against a state that is renewable under the APA, even though the EEOC clearly can subject state employers to harms sufficient to confer Article III standing. Accordingly, the “flexible” and “pragmatic” approach to assessing the finality of agency action, see Qureshi, 663 F.3d at 781, leads to the conclusion that the Guidance is “final agency action” under § 704 of the APA.
B.
1.
The EEOC does not dispute that its staff would use the Guidance when conducting their official duties under Title VII. Nor does it dispute that, if employers will conform their conduct to reflect the “safe harbors” set forth by the Guidance, such employers would virtually always escape adverse EEOC determinations on charges of felony hiring discrimination, and thus effectively be immunized from a DOJ-backed enforcement action. Still, the EEOC points to two cases of this court, Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 757 F.3d 439, 442 (5th Cir. 2014), and Belle Co., L.L.C. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 761 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2014), judgment vacated by Kent Recycling Servs., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 2427, 195 L.Ed.2d 776 (2016), which it argues preclude a holding that the Enforcement Guidance is “final agency action.”
We begin our review of this authority by noting that the Supreme Court recently vacated this court’s judgment in Belle Co., and remanded the case for this court to reconsider its holding in the light of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016). In Belle Co., this court had held that the Army Corps of Engineers’ “affirmative” jurisdictional determination (“JD”), which asserted that the plaintiffs property development was subject to the Clean Water Act’s (“CWA”) permitting requirements, did not create legal consequences. See Belle Co., 761 F.3d at 394. The court had reasoned that the agency’s determination of its own authori[383]*383ty did not create legal consequences because the determination merely notified the plaintiff that it was subject to permitting requirements. As this court then stated, the JD did nothing to alter the plaintiff’s legal obligations, because “even if [the plaintiff] had never requested the [determination] and instead had begun to fill [the land], it would not have been immune to enforcement action by the Corps or EPA.” Id. at 391. In everyday language, the plaintiff was no worse off after the JD issued than it was before.
In Hawkes Co., however, the Supreme Court rejected such reasoning and effectively reversed our decision in Belle Co. Under nearly identical facts, the Court concluded that the Corps’ issuance of an “affirmative” JD, which, as in Belle Co., asserted that a petitioner’s property is subject to the CWA’s permitting requirements, is a “final agency action” under the APA because it creates legal consequences. Hawkes Co., 186 S.Ct. at 1814. This is so, the Supreme Court observed, because if the Corps had issued a “negative” JD — that is, a JD stating that the plaintiff’s property did not contain “waters of the United States” — the plaintiff would have been entitled to a five-year period of protection from any government-brought CWA enforcement action. Id. In short, the determination to issue the affirmative JD denied the plaintiffs the benefits that would have flowed from a negative JD, and thus this effect constituted “legal consequences” to the plaintiffs resulting from the affirmative JD. Id.
In reaching this holding, the Supreme Court once again emphasized that a “pragmatic” approach must be taken when deciding whether an agency action is “final,” and thus subject to court review:
This conclusion tracks the “pragmatic” approach we have long taken to finality. For example, in Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 76 S.Ct. 569, 100 L.Ed. 910 (1956), we considered the finality of an order specifying which commodities the Interstate Commerce Commission believed were exempt by statute from regulation, and which it believed were not. Although the order “had no authority except to give notice of how the Commission interpreted” the relevant statute, and “would have effect only if and when a particular action was brought against a particular carrier,” we held that the order was nonetheless immediately renewable.... So too here, while no administrative or criminal proceeding can be brought for failure to conform to the approved JD itself, that final agency determination not only deprives respondents of a five-year safe harbor from liability under the Act, but warns that if they discharge pollutants onto their property without obtaining a permit from the Corps, they do so at the risk of significant criminal and civil penalties.
Id. at 1815 (internal citations omitted).
As the above passage applies to this case, an agency action can create legal consequences even when the action, in itself, is disassociated with the filing of an enforcement proceeding, and is not authority for the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. Instead, “legal consequences” are created whenever the challenged agency action' has the effect of committing the agency itself to a view of the law that, in turn, forces the plaintiff either to alter its conduct, or expose itself to potential liability. In Hawkes Co., this agency action was the issuance of a JD asserting that the plaintiffs land was subject to the CWA’s permitting requirements, thus depriving the plaintiff of the agency-created safe harbor and forcing the plaintiff to submit to the agency’s view or risk liability. Here, it is the EEOC’s promulgation of the Guid-[384]*384anee, which offers regulated entities a safe harbor from DOJ referral, and thus ultimately from liability, only if employers alter their hiring policies to comply with the Guidance’s directives.7
As we earlier noted, the EEOC also points to a second Fifth Circuit decision as suggesting a finding that the Guidance is not final agency action. See Luminant, 757 F.3d 439. In Luminant, the plaintiff, an energy company, received two notices of violation (“NOVs”) from the EPA, asserting that two of its Texas-based power plants were emitting pollutants in violation of multiple provisions of the Clean Air Act and the state-level implementation plan. This court held that a challenged EPA notice of violation (“NOV”) was not “final agency action” because the relevant federal statute, the Clean Air Act, and not the NOV, set out the parties’ obligations. Lu-minant, 757 F.3d at 442. Specifically, the court reasoned that “adverse legal consequences will flow only if the district court determines that Luminant violated” the Clean Air Act. Id. Phrased differently, the court asserted that, so long as the EPA took no further action, “Luminant would have no new legal obligation imposed on it and would have lost no right it otherwise enjoyed.” Id.
To the extent that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hawkes Co. does not also undermine the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Luminant (principally, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on a “pragmatic approach” to assessing whether APA review is appropriate, instead of reliance on formalistic criteria, such as whether the agency decision itself imposes penalties or is binding on a court), we find Luminant distinguishable from the instant case. The agency document in Luminant merely expressed the agency’s opinion about the legality of the plaintiffs conduct; it did not, as here, commit the administrative agency to a specific course of action should the plaintiff fail to comply with the agency’s view. Furthermore, the agency action in Luminant was limited to a fact-specific situation and a particular violator. In contrast, the Guidance here provides an analytical framework that applies across the board to all employers — including the hundreds of state agencies at issue in this suit, which employ hundreds of thousands of employees — and binds EEOC staff in later [385]*385actions. See Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Browner, 215 F.3d 45, 48-49 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding that “legal consequences” existed, even when no enforcement action had yet been threatened against the plaintiff, where the agency expressed a definitive agency position that applied to all facilities within its regulatory purview, and had the effect of requiring all regulated facilities to undertake increased reporting and record-retention obligations or risk enforcement actions and fines). Furthermore, as earlier said, the Guidance’s safe harbor provisions set out rules that employers are to follow if they wish to avoid legal consequences. Or, stated another way, an employer is assured protection from agency referral and prosecution — effectively immune to a government-backed enforcement action — if it conducts itself in the manner prescribed by the Guidance.
Finally, other factors distinguish the Guidance from the type of agency action that this court previously has indicated does not create legal consequences. For example, the Enforcement Guidance does not simply repeat the relevant provisions of Title VII. Instead, the Guidance purports to interpret authoritatively both the meaning of “disparate impact” in the context of employer hiring policies regarding criminal convictions and the scope of the “job related, business necessity” defense. This court has always considered such a distinction important when deciding whether agency action is “final” under the APA. See Resident Council of Allen Parkway Vill. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 980 F.2d 1043, 1056 (5th Cir. 1993) (finding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s “internal and informal” interpretation of the relevant statutory term did not constitute “final agency action” under the APA, but adding that “[w]ere HUD to formally define the phrase [at issue] ... [the plaintiffs] would undoubtedly have the right to review HUD’s final agency action under § 702 [of the APA]”).
2.
In addition to relying on this court’s precedents, the EEOC also leans heavily on AT & T Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 270 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir. 2001), in asserting that its Enforcement Guidance is not “final agency action.” In AT & T, the D.C. Circuit considered whether language in the EEOC’s compliance manual regarding the calculation of pregnancy leave was “final agency action” under the APA. The litigation ultimately concerned whether the plaintiff employer was required to give former employees credit towards their pensions for time missed due to pregnancy before the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979 (the “PDA”). The plaintiff employer challenged language in the EEOC’s compliance manual that stated that denying full work credit for pre-PDA pregnancy leave was “past discrimination” sufficient to constitute a “present violation of Title VII.” Id. at 974-75. The plaintiff employer also challenged several letters that the EEOC sent to the plaintiff suggesting that its practices violated Title VII. The plaintiff argued that the EEOC’s actions, taken as a whole, made clear that it reached a conclusion concerning the plaintiff employer’s policy, and that that conclusion was “final agency action” under the APA. Id. at 975.
The D.C. Circuit disagreed, however, and held that the EEOC’s conduct, including its statement in the compliance manual, was not “final agency action” under the APA. Id. at 976-77. In making this determination, the court noted that the EEOC “has not inflicted any injury upon [the plaintiff employer] merely by expressing its view of the law — a view that has force [386]*386only to the extent the agency can persuade a court to the same conclusion.” Id. at 976. The court also noted that legal consequences did not necessarily flow from the EEOC’s actions because “the EEOC is not bound to sue [the plaintiff employer],” and because the compliance manual “does not say whether, how, against which companies, or under what circumstances the Commission will act upon [its] view.” Id.
The EEOC contends that, like the compliance manual in AT & T, Enforcement Guidance is not “final agency action” because it has the force of law only to the extent that a court presiding over any enforcement action agrees with it. In dwelling on this point, however, the EEOC evades the obvious differences. Most notably here, the Enforcement Guidance purports to bind the agency itself. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit recognized in AT & T that, had the policy guidance at issue in that case intended to bind EEOC staff in their official conduct, instead of merely expressing the agency’s views with respect to employers’ actions, the Court would likely have reached a different conclusion:
Although there are ... particular circumstances in which an agency’s taking a legal position itself inflicts injury or forces a party to change its behavior, such that taking that position may be deemed final agency action, ... this is not such a case. ... Unlike the EPA Guidance at issue in Appalachian Power, the EEOC Compliance Manual [at issue in AT & T] does not affect the regulated community. Whereas “EPA officials in the field [were] bound to apply” the EPA Guidance ... the EEOC is not bound to sue AT & T.
AT & T, 270 F.3d at 975-76 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
The policy guidance in AT & T provided little to no insight concerning what the EEOC itself was obligated to do as a result of the agency’s expressed viewpoint. In contrast, the Guidance here provides an exhaustive procedural framework for EEOC officials to follow.8 As explained supra Part III.A, by binding itself to the Guidance’s standards and directives, the EEOC has assured employers nation-wide, public and private, that, so long as they conform their conduct to the Guidance’s “safe harbor” requirements, they will not be deemed to be in violation of Title VII by EEOC investigators. Thus, they will avoid referral to the U.S. Attorney General for prosecution. This, in turn, guarantees employers that they will not face an ultimate finding of monetary or injunctive liability as a result of a government enforcement action.
For this reason, the EEOC errs in relying on AT&T to suggest that agency actions are “final” under the APA only when federal courts are later bound to give ■ deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute at issue. Of course, such a method is one way to show final agency action, but it is only one way. See, e.g., Hawkes Co., 136 S.Ct. at 1815; Frozen Food, 351 U.S. at 44-45, 76 S.Ct. 569. It is also sufficient that the Enforcement Guidance has the immediate effect of altering the rights and obligations of the “regulated community” (i.e., virtually all state and private employers) by offering them a detailed and conclusive means to avoid an adverse EEOC finding, and, by extension, agency referral and a government-backed enforcement action.
[387]*387C.
Finally, we address the major prop of the EEOC’s argument: because the EEOC has only investigatory authority over state employers, no action that the EEOC might take with respect to state employers can be “final” for the purposes of review under the APA. Implicit in this argument is the clear suggestion that, although EEOC investigations undoubtedly subject employers to practical harms, no “legal consequences” sufficient to invoke APA jurisdiction flow from the mere initiation of an investigation into an employer’s hiring practices.
We can certainly agree that an agency’s decision to investigate a specific regulated entity, including the issuance of subpoenas related to that investigation, normally does not constitute “final agency action.” See Jobs, Training, and Servs., Inc. v. E. Tex. Council of Gov’ts, 50 F.3d 1318, 1324 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Veldhoen v. U.S. Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994)). Texas is not, however, simply challenging the prospect of an investigation by the EEOC. Instead, it is challenging the Enforcement Guidance itself, which represents the legal standards that the EEOC applies when deciding when and how to conduct such an investigation, and what practices may require charges. The Guidance is an agency determination in its final form and is applicable to all employers nation-wide; it is not an intermediate step in a specific enforcement action that may or may not lead to concrete injury. Indeed, when previously concluding that the threat of agency investigation is not a “legal consequence,” this court has relied heavily on the notion that such an investigation is merely an initial, relatively inconsequential step towards a definitive declaration of the petitioner’s legal rights and obligations regarding the dispute that prompted the investigation. See Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 155 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Veldhoen, 35 F.3d at 226). When, as here, the agency action being challenged is the promulgation of agency rules that mandate such investigations across the entire regulated community, and provide a specific, detailed “safe harbor” practice by which the regulated community may avoid adverse agency findings and eventual DOJ-led prosecution, the agency has already acted definitively by altering both its own obligations and the rights of the regulated entities it oversees.
D.
We repeat ourselves to say that, in publishing the Enforcement Guidance at issue, the EEOC has enacted a policy statement couched in mandatory language that is intended to apply to all employers. At no point in this litigation has the EEOC contended that it does not intend to follow the Guidance to its full extent when carrying out its official duties. By nevertheless arguing that the Guidance cannot be reviewed, the EEOC exploits the limitations of its enforcement authority, while denying that state agencies will face legal consequences should they fail to follow the Enforcement Guidance’s directives.
The EEOC’s Guidance may well be a valid exercise of its authority. That conclusion has yet to be determined. To wholly deny judicial review, however, would be to ignore the presumption of reviewability, and to disregard the Supreme Court’s instruction that courts should adopt a pragmatic approach for the purposes of determining reviewability under the APA. Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507 (stating that there is a presumption that judicial review is available to one wronged by agency action); ' see also id. at 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507. Accordingly, we find that the Guidance is “final [388]*388agency action” for the purposes of the APA.9
IV.
To conclude, the district court erred in dismissing this action on justiciability and subject matter jurisdiction grounds. The district court’s judgment is therefore REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.