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.