783 F.Supp.3d 290
D.D.C.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (North America’s Building Trades Unions—NABTU—and an affiliated local council) sued the Department of Defense (DoD) and General Services Administration (GSA) over memoranda that broadly exempt certain large-scale federal construction projects from the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) mandate in Executive Order 14,063.
- Executive Order 14,063, issued by President Biden in 2022, requires PLAs on federal construction projects over $35 million, unless a project-specific exception is granted.
- The DoD and GSA issued memoranda in February 2025 removing the mandatory PLA requirements from future solicitations, with DoD doing so broadly and GSA exempting Land Port of Entry projects specifically.
- Plaintiffs argue these memoranda violate the EO and harm their ability to negotiate PLAs, citing the loss of leverage and halted negotiations on specific projects.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to set aside these memoranda and require agencies to comply with the EO.
- The Court issued a memorandum opinion granting the preliminary injunction, holding that the memoranda likely violate the law and cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Suffered concrete injury from loss of PLA bargaining leverage due to memoranda, directly traceable and redressable by court order | Injury speculative, caused by contractors' voluntary decisions, not directly by memoranda | Plaintiffs have standing; injury is concrete, traceable to the memoranda, and redressable |
| Final Agency Action | Memoranda are final agency actions—they conclusively determine policy and have legal impact by removing PLA mandates | Memoranda are merely intermediate steps, not final; real action is future solicitations | Memoranda are final agency actions under the APA |
| Accordance with Law (APA) | Memoranda violate the EO and the APA by creating blanket exemptions, bypassing required case-by-case exceptions | EO and regulations permit class deviations; memoranda are not contrary to law; EO not judicially enforceable | Memoranda violate the EO and are not in accordance with law, contrary to the APA |
| Irreparable Harm & Public Interest | Irreparable harm from lost bargaining power and disruption to collective bargaining; public interest favors lawful agency action | No irreparable harm; agencies/contractors free to negotiate PLAs, injunction harms procurement flexibility | Plaintiffs face irreparable harm; public interest favors injunction to maintain lawful procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing injury in fact and causation requirements)
- Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (loss of bargaining leverage as cognizable injury)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (final agency action under the APA—Bennett test)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction requirements)
- League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (irreparable harm requirements and public interest in compliance with the law)
- O'Donnell Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia, 963 F.2d 420 (irreparable harm from deprivation of collective bargaining opportunities)