bypassing Congress to expand a construction wage law into manufacturing and shipping
A federal court in Texas has drawn a boundary around a Depression-era wage law, ruling that the Biden administration's 2023 effort to extend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements to materials suppliers and truck drivers exceeded the authority Congress originally granted. The US District Court for the Northern District of Texas made its injunction permanent and nationwide, affirming that the reach of law is shaped by legislative intent, not executive ambition. The Department of Labor accepted the ruling, but industry groups warn the broader 2023 overhaul remains contested ground.
- A federal judge in Lubbock permanently struck down three regulatory provisions that had attempted to pull manufacturing and shipping workers under a law written solely for construction labor.
- Industry groups AGC and ABC argued the Biden administration had quietly redrawn the boundaries of a 1931 statute without ever returning to Congress for permission.
- The ruling delivers a partial victory — but the ABC warns that the surviving 2023 rules still distort wage surveys, freeze out smaller contractors, and drive up costs for taxpayers.
- The Department of Labor accepted the court's decision on the three blocked provisions but has given no signal it will voluntarily retreat from the rest of its regulatory expansion.
- The ABC has vowed to pursue further litigation, meaning the construction industry's fight over federal prevailing wage policy is entering a new and prolonged phase.
A federal judge in Texas has permanently struck down three provisions from the Biden administration's 2023 overhaul of prevailing wage rules, ruling them unlawful and voiding them across the entire country. The case centered on the Davis-Bacon Act, a 1931 Depression-era law that sets minimum wages for workers on federally funded construction projects. The administration had attempted to extend those rules to materials suppliers and delivery truck drivers, and even sought to apply them retroactively to contracts that had never included them — territory, the court found, that Congress never authorized.
The Associated General Contractors of America and the Associated Builders and Contractors brought the challenge, arguing the administration had overstepped by regulating manufacturing and shipping operations under a law designed for construction labor. A judge in Lubbock had initially blocked the rules from taking effect; that injunction is now permanent. The Department of Labor accepted the outcome without appeal.
AGC chief executive Jeffrey Shoaf framed the ruling as a matter of constitutional process, emphasizing that his organization respects the Davis-Bacon Act as Congress wrote it — but not as the prior administration tried to rewrite it. The ABC, however, sees the victory as incomplete. Vice president Kristen Swearingen noted that most of the 2023 changes remain in force, and that the surviving rules continue to distort wage surveys, discourage smaller firms, and inflate taxpayer costs. The ABC is pressing the Department of Labor to rescind the entire 2023 overhaul and has signaled its intention to keep litigating.
The ruling checks executive power but resolves little. The fundamental question of how far prevailing wage rules can reach remains open, and the legal contest over federal wage policy is far from finished.
A federal judge in Texas has dismantled a significant piece of the Biden administration's effort to broaden prevailing wage rules far beyond their traditional home in construction. On June 24, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting in Lubbock, ruled that three regulatory provisions were unlawful and struck them from the books nationwide. The Department of Labor has accepted the ruling without further challenge.
At issue was an ambitious attempt to stretch the Davis-Bacon Act—a Depression-era law from 1931 that sets minimum hourly wages for workers on federally funded construction projects—into territory Congress never contemplated. The Biden administration's Department of Labor rewrote how prevailing wages are calculated in 2023, then pushed to apply those rules to materials suppliers operated by contractors and subcontractors, as well as to delivery truck drivers working on job sites. The administration also tried to impose Davis-Bacon requirements retroactively on contracts that had never included them in the first place.
The Associated General Contractors of America and the Associated Builders and Contractors saw an overreach and sued. They argued the administration had exceeded its legal authority by attempting to regulate manufacturing and shipping operations under a law designed for construction labor. A judge in Lubbock initially blocked the rules from taking effect; the final order has now made that injunction permanent across the entire country.
Jeffrey D. Shoaf, the AGC's chief executive, framed the victory as a matter of constitutional process. "Our legal challenge was about the prior administration bypassing Congress and attempting to expand a construction wage law to cover a wide range of manufacturing and shipping operations that was not authorized by that law," he said. He was careful to note that the AGC respects the Davis-Bacon Act's underlying purpose and expects its members to comply with the law as Congress wrote it.
The ABC, however, is not satisfied with a partial win. Kristen Swearingen, the group's vice president of government affairs, pointed out that most of the 2023 changes remain in effect despite the court's decision. She argued that the surviving rules still distort wage surveys, discourage smaller firms from bidding on federal contracts, and inflate costs for taxpayers. The ABC is calling on the Department of Labor to rescind the entire 2023 overhaul and has signaled its intention to pursue further litigation to overturn what remains.
The ruling represents a check on executive power, but it does not end the dispute. The construction industry groups view the 2023 rule as fundamentally flawed and plan to keep fighting. The Department of Labor, for its part, has conceded on the three provisions the court blocked but has not indicated whether it will voluntarily retreat from the rest of its regulatory expansion. The broader question of how far prevailing wage rules can reach remains unresolved, and the legal battle over federal wage policy is far from over.
Citações Notáveis
Our legal challenge was about the prior administration bypassing Congress and attempting to expand a construction wage law to cover a wide range of manufacturing and shipping operations that was not authorized by that law.— Jeffrey D. Shoaf, AGC chief executive
ABC urges the DOL to swiftly rescind the 2023 final rule, describing it as a major step towards cutting red tape and improving the federal government's delivery of critical construction projects.— Kristen Swearingen, ABC vice president of government affairs
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the Biden administration try to extend Davis-Bacon rules to truck drivers and materials suppliers in the first place?
The administration saw prevailing wage protections as a tool to raise labor standards across the supply chain, not just on the construction site itself. If you're delivering materials or supplying goods to a federal project, the thinking went, you should be covered too. But Congress never gave the Department of Labor that authority.
And the court agreed with the contractors?
On three specific provisions, yes. The judge found the administration had gone beyond what the statute allowed. But the ABC is frustrated because most of the 2023 overhaul is still standing—the parts that affect how prevailing wages are calculated in the first place.
So this is a partial victory for industry?
It is, but it's also a signal that the fight isn't over. The ABC wants the entire 2023 rule gone. They say it's driving up costs and making it harder for smaller firms to compete for federal work.
What does the Department of Labor do now?
They've accepted the court's decision on those three provisions. But they haven't said they'll voluntarily dismantle the rest. That's why the ABC is preparing for more litigation.
Is there a principle at stake here beyond wages?
Absolutely. It's about whether an executive agency can stretch an old law to cover new ground without Congress saying so. The contractors argue the administration overreached. The court agreed—at least on those three points.