The Associated Builders and Contractors and its Florida First Coast Chapter challenged the mandate on statutory and constitutional grounds, arguing it violated the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, and the First Amendment.
Chief Judge William Pryor, writing for the court, held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenges. The court reasoned that the executive order’s three statutory exceptions preserved full and open competition, defeating the claim under the Competition Act.
Regarding the Federal Property Act, the court found the President had authority to prescribe policies he considered necessary to carry out the statute’s subtitle. The order’s requirement for project labor agreements was deemed consistent with the Act’s goal of an economical and efficient procurement system.
The court also rejected the First Amendment freedom of association claim, noting the associations failed to demonstrate that their members engaged in expressive activities that would be significantly affected by interacting with unions on construction sites.
Judge Abudu concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to dispute the majority’s reliance on Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. Hawaii. He argued that the broad deference afforded to the President in national security and immigration contexts does not automatically apply to the President’s proprietary authority under the Federal Property Act.