Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Supreme Court Won’t Consider Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Mandate

By Justin R. Barnes & Laura A. Mitchell on January 14, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Supreme Court on Monday, Jan. 13, 2025, declined to take up a decision addressing the president’s authority under the Procurement Act to issue a minimum wage mandate for employees working on federal government contracts. The denial of the petition for certiorari keeps a circuit split intact, and leaves federal contractors to navigate the wage mandate’s uncertain legal status while complying with the latest minimum wage hike to $17.75 per hour, which took effect Jan. 1.

President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 14026 in 2021, which increased from $10.95 to $15 the minimum hourly wage for employees working on federal government contracts, and provided for annual increases to the minimum wage. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued regulations implementing the EO.

In the case rejected by the Supreme Court, a Colorado federal court refused to grant a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the wage mandate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Bradford v. United States DOL, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10382 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2024). The appeals court held the plaintiffs were not likely to show that the DOL lacked statutory authority to issue the DOL rule implementing EO 14026. The appeals court did not issue a final decision on the merits, however. The plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari asked the justices to address whether the wage mandate exceeds the president’s authority under the Procurement Act and, if not, whether the statute improperly gives lawmaking authority to the president. Their petition was denied, leaving these critical questions unresolved.

Meanwhile, two other challenges to the federal contractor wage mandate are pending.

In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the president lacked authority under the Procurement Act to issue EO 14026. State of Nebraska v. Su, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 28010 (9th Cir Nov. 5, 2024). The appeals court also held the DOL regulation implementing the EO was arbitrary and capricious because the DOL failed to consider alternatives to the $15 rate, such as a lower wage rate or phasing in the $15 rate over several years.

Again, however, the Ninth Circuit also did not address the merits. Instead of invalidating EO 14026 and the implementing regulation, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the federal district court in Arizona, which had upheld the wage mandate in a legal challenge brought by several states. On remand, the district court is expected to issue a preliminary injunction barring application of the wage mandate, although it is not clear whether the injunction will apply to just the plaintiff states (to the extent of their relationships with the federal government as federal contractors) or as a complete ban to enforcement within the states. On Dec. 20, 2024, the DOL filed a petition for en banc rehearing of the divided Ninth Circuit panel decision.

The wage mandate is also facing an ongoing challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeals court will consider the Biden Administration’s appeal of a 2023 decision invalidating EO 14026 in a case brought by the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The Texas district court had narrowly enjoined the wage mandate only as applied to the plaintiff state governments, refusing to issue a nationwide injunction because it did not want to “encroach” upon other federal courts that had upheld the executive order. State of Texas v. Biden, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171265 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2023). The appeals court heard oral argument last August. The Fifth Circuit could reverse the Texas court and uphold EO 14026, setting up a split with the Ninth Circuit. This outcome is unlikely, however.

For now, the minimum wage mandate is in effect. But a broader reprieve (through a variety of avenues) may be forthcoming. The Trump Administration may opt to abandon the Fifth Circuit appeal and the bid to rehear the Ninth Circuit panel’s holding. President-Elect Trump also may opt to rescind President Biden’s executive order and decline to defend the wage mandate.

Contact your Jackson Lewis attorney if you have questions about the status of the federal contractor minimum wage mandate and its effect on your business.

Photo of Laura A. Mitchell Laura A. Mitchell

As co-leader of the firm’s ESG group, Laura Mitchell partners with her clients to evaluate, set, achieve and monitor their organizational culture and human capital goals. She focuses her practice on data analytics, including pay equity and other employee analytics, working side-by-side with…

As co-leader of the firm’s ESG group, Laura Mitchell partners with her clients to evaluate, set, achieve and monitor their organizational culture and human capital goals. She focuses her practice on data analytics, including pay equity and other employee analytics, working side-by-side with employers to build programs that benefit employees and create a stable, high-functioning workplace. Understanding that an inclusive, values-based culture provides a crucial competitive advantage in the modern workplace, Laura enjoys counseling companies on the development of proactive and equitable pay and diversity practices.

In Laura’s version of the reimagined workplace, attention to human capital issues, especially DEI and pay equity, would be the rule rather than the exception nationwide and she works with companies across all industries—both new and well-established multi-national organizations of all sizes—to realize this vision for her clients’ ongoing success. She helps clients understand all issues across the spectrum of their journey, helping to establish regular analyses as well as counseling organizations on implementation and compliance obligations, where applicable. Committed to putting her clients’ organizational goals first and foremost, Laura views herself as an extension of her clients’ team, responsible for providing proactive guidance and engaging in transparent, ongoing communication.

Laura also represents companies in OFCCP matters, preparing for and defending OFCCP audits, and counseling employers on issues stemming from OFCCP regulations. She personally oversees the development of hundreds of Affirmative Action Plans for clients each year and is intimately involved in the defense of OFCCP audits. Her approach to compliance is one of facilitation and conciliation while simultaneously advocating in the best interests of her clients.

Read more about Laura A. MitchellEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Wage & Hour Law Update
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Beyond the First 100 Days
  • In the Legal Interest
  • Cooking with SALT
  • The Fiduciary Litigator
  • CCN Mexico Report™
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo