582 F.Supp.3d 819
D. Colo.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Duke Bradford and Arkansas Valley Adventure, LLC (AVA) operate outdoor recreation services (rafting, overnight trips) under federal permits on public lands; Colorado River Outfitters Association (CROA) also sued. Plaintiffs challenge the Department of Labor’s implementation of President Biden’s Executive Order raising the federal contractor minimum wage to $15 (the “Biden Rule”).
- AVA’s relevant Special Recreation Permit (Eagle River Permit) expires March 30, 2022; renewal or other permit changes after Jan 30, 2022 would subject AVA to the Biden Rule. AVA pays guides via industry "trip salaries," many guides sometimes work >40 compensable hours but AVA historically has not paid overtime at $22.50/hr.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Biden Rule; asserted injuries include increased labor costs, the need to change scheduling/pay practices, elimination of overnight trips, and increased housing/hiring costs.
- Court held: Bradford and AVA have Article III standing; CROA lacks organizational or associational standing on the record and was dismissed from the preliminary-injunction analysis.
- On the merits, the court found plaintiffs unlikely to succeed: the Procurement Act authorizes the President’s policy (lenient economy-and-efficiency nexus); DOL’s rulemaking was not arbitrary and capricious; non-delegation/separation challenges failed. The preliminary injunction was DENIED (Jan. 24, 2022).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III / standing | Plaintiffs (Bradford/AVA/CROA) will imminently suffer increased costs and operational disruption when permits are renewed/modified | DOL: timing uncertain; plaintiffs may not be imminently subject to the rule | Bradford and AVA have standing (permit renewal imminent); CROA lacks organizational/associational standing on record |
| Statutory authority under Procurement Act | Procurement Act does not authorize President/DOL to regulate non‑procurement contractors on public lands or displace existing wage statutes | President/DOL: Procurement Act authorizes broad, government‑wide policies to promote economy and efficiency, including minimum wages for contractors and contract‑like instruments | Court: Biden Order fits the Act’s lenient "economy and efficiency" nexus; historical precedent supports authority; plaintiffs unlikely to prevail |
| APA — arbitrary & capricious | DOL rescinded Trump exemption without adequately addressing reliance interests, contradictory factual findings, or reasonable alternatives | DOL: rescission and new rule were explained, considered comments and alternatives where appropriate; President’s rescission is a presidential prerogative | Court: DOL provided a adequate explanation for the change, considered comments/alternatives, and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously |
| Non‑delegation / separation of powers | Granting the President/DOL power to set contractor minimum wages oversteps legislative power / is an unlawful delegation | Procurement Act supplies an intelligible principle ("economical and efficient" procurement) and historical practice supports the delegation | Court: non‑delegation challenge fails—Procurement Act supplies sufficient intelligible principle and precedent upholds similar delegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence requirement for standing; speculative harms insufficient)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (requirements when an agency changes course from prior policy)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (nondelegation doctrine framework; intelligible principle standard)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (modern nondelegation discussion and deference to intelligible principles)
- AFL‑CIO v. Kahn, 618 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (historical upholding of presidential procurement directives)
- UAW‑Labor Emp. & Training Corp. v. Chao, 325 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Procurement Act nexus can be "lenient"; presidential directives upheld)
- City of Albuquerque v. Dep’t of Interior, 379 F.3d 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (Procurement Act provides sufficiently specific delegation for executive action)