New Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Hike Heads to Court
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.11.22
On February 8, 2022, just days after the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors,” implementing Executive Order (“EO”) 14026, went into effect, five states – Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska and South Carolina – filed a lawsuit – in Arizona federal district court, seeking, among other things, a court order invalidating the federal contractor minimum wage Final Rule and EO 14026. As we have covered previously, EO 14026 and DOL’s implementing Final Rule require a $15 hourly minimum wage increase for some, but not all, federal contractor and subcontractor employees on new contracts or existing contracts that renewed after January 30, 2022. These five states argue that EO 14026 exceeds the President’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“FPASA”) and that Congress has not otherwise delegated authority to the Executive Branch to enact a rule with such wide-sweeping effects on the American economy. By way of example, the States argue that since the current minimum wage in Arizona is $12.80, Nebraska is $9, Idaho and Indiana are $7.25, and South Carolina does not have a state-specific minimum wage, this rule imposes a high economic cost on federal contractors in their respective states. The plaintiff States are seeking, among other things, a nationwide injunction of the Final Rule and EO 14026.
Two days later, on February 10, 2022, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, filed a similar challenge to the Final Rule and EO 14026 in Texas federal district court. Notably, in this case, the plaintiff States are only seeking an injunction as to the enforcement of the Final Rule and EO 14026 against federal contractors operating in their respective jurisdictions.
We will continue to watch these cases, amongst other potential litigation developments, related to the implementation of this Final Rule and EO 14026.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
