FOLLOW US

President Joe Biden’s executive order mandating a $15 minimum hourly wage for federal contractors has become the center of a legal battle that could redefine presidential authority under the Procurement Act. The U.S. government urged the Supreme Court on Monday to let a Tenth Circuit decision stand, defending Biden’s directive as a continuation of a 75-year precedent.

The Department of Labor (DOL), in its filing, argued that presidents have long used the Procurement Act to shape federal contracting policies. According to the DOL, Biden’s move aligns with a history of executive actions—spanning Democratic and Republican administrations—designed to improve efficiency and economy in government procurement.

Historic Authority or Overreach?

The heart of the dispute lies in whether Biden’s wage hike falls within the powers granted by the Procurement Act. The DOL leaned on the D.C. Circuit’s landmark 1979 ruling in AFL-CIO v. Kahn, which upheld President Jimmy Carter’s authority to impose wage and price standards on contractors to combat inflation.

That ruling, rooted in Section 121(a) of the Procurement Act, grants the president broad discretion to prescribe policies necessary for the act’s goals, including cost efficiency and streamlined government services. The DOL maintains that Biden’s wage hike fits squarely within those parameters, emphasizing its potential to enhance procurement outcomes.

“Since 1949, presidents have issued directives to manage federal contracting,” the DOL asserted. “The wage increase continues this legacy, with clear ties to economy and efficiency.”

Petitioners Push Back

Not everyone sees it that way. Arkansas Valley Adventure LLC and the Colorado River Outfitters Association, represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, claim the Tenth Circuit decision dangerously expanded presidential authority. The groups contend that the wage hike imposes undue burdens on businesses like theirs, especially those operating in seasonal outdoor industries.

The challengers argue the DOL’s reliance on the Procurement Act misapplies its intent, framing Biden’s wage directive as regulatory overreach. They’ve asked the Supreme Court to intervene, calling the appellate ruling a step too far.

Clashing Precedents

The DOL’s filing highlighted other instances where courts upheld executive authority under the Procurement Act. Among them is the 2003 UAW-Labor Employment & Training Corp. v. Chao decision, which affirmed President George W. Bush’s authority to mandate workplace notices about labor rights.

Critics, however, cite conflicting rulings. In November, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Biden lacked authority for the wage increase, and a similar challenge is pending in the Fifth Circuit.

The Road Ahead

With legal challenges piling up, the Supreme Court’s response could carry significant weight. While the Department of Justice, representing the DOL, declined to comment, the stakes for the Biden administration are clear. A ruling against the wage hike could curtail the president’s influence over federal contracting policies, reshaping how future administrations wield the Procurement Act.

The outdoor companies are represented by Michael Poon, Oliver J. Dunford, and Steven Simpson of the Pacific Legal Foundation. The DOL’s legal team includes U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Brian M. Boynton, Mark B. Stern, and Daniel Winik.

As the justices deliberate whether to take up the case, the battle over Biden’s wage mandate exemplifies the tension between executive authority and judicial interpretation—a tug-of-war with profound implications for contractors and workers alike.