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.
