Trump Wins 11th Cir. Case Defending Biden Project Labor Rule (1)

Two builders’ associations failed to block a Biden-era requirement for project labor agreements on large federal construction projects after an appeals court found that they’re unlikely to succeed on their statutory and constitutional challenges to the procurement mandate.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday affirmedthe denial of a preliminary injunction against the mandate, which the Associated Builders and Contractors and its Florida-based arm facially challenged.

The dispute concerns Executive Order 14063, issued by President Joe Biden in February 2022, which requires federal construction contractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements, or PLAs, with labor unions. The plaintiffs, representing non-unionized firms, alleged that the requirement was facially invalid under several federal statutes and the Constitution.

The case is a rare instance of the Trump administration defending a Biden-era rule in court. Its decision to maintain the PLA rule surprised industry construction groups in the wake of the administration’s cancellations of other wage and affirmative action requirements for federal contractors.

Chief Judge William Pryor, who wrote for the court, said the president has broad discretion under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to prescribe policies deemed “necessary” for an efficient procurement system.

“And courts that have sustained challenges to presidential directives under the Federal Property Act have acknowledged that there are no problems where an executive order ‘has a close nexus to the ordinary hiring, firing, and management of labor,’” Pryor said. “The executive order we address here clearly has such a nexus.”

Michael Bellaman, ABC president and CEO, said in a statement that the association “will continue to fight this inflationary, discriminatory project labor agreement mandate because taxpayers lose when responsible, qualified contractors are effectively excluded from bidding on contracts to build critical infrastructure.”

Flawed ‘Harm’ Analysis

While the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida correctly denied a preliminary injunction, Pryor wrote that it “did so for the wrong reasons.”

He criticized the district court’s flawed analysis regarding the plaintiff’s claims that the mandate restricts competition in violation of the Competition Act and infringes on their First Amendment rights by forcing members to associate with unions in order to bid for or perform contracts.

It erred in ruling that the associations wouldn’t suffer irreparable harm under the Competition Act without assessing the possibility of such injury, the judge wrote. The district court also ignored the harm analysis in the First Amendment violation claim, even though no showing of harm is required because an ongoing deprivation of such rights creates an irreparable injury, he added.

Courts cannot deny an injunction due to lack of harm for one claim, since different legal theories based on constitutional and statutory claims can show different harms, the opinion said.

The associations claimed that Biden’s order, and a rule subsequently issued by the General Services Administration to implement the policy in 2023, amounted to illegal overreach of power beyond the authority provided to the president under the Procurement Act. They also alleged that their non-unionized members are unfairly losing significant business opportunities with the government because the procurement mandate conditions contracts on entry into PLAs with unions.

The government and the associations asked the panel to decide whether the facial challenge might succeed on the merits. It concluded that they’re unlikely to win on claims brought under the Competition Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act.

The majority opinion said the mandate stemmed from authorities that “multiple presidents have invoked” to promote policy preferences regarding PLAs.

Judge Elizabeth L. Branch joined the opinion in full.

Meanwhile, Judge Nancy Gbana Abudu agreed with the decision to deny injunctive relief but wrote a concurring opinion stating the panel’s analysis of presidential power under federal procurement laws should be limited to the current record and the specific legal arguments presented by the associations.

A GSA spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Littler Mendelson PC represented the groups. The Justice Department represented the GSA.

The case is Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First v. General Services Administration, 11th Cir., No. 25-11375, order issued 4/21/26.