Both Biden and Trump administrations back the contested union labor policy
A federal appeals court has denied an attempt to block a mandate requiring union labor agreements on large government construction projects, finding challengers are unlikely to succeed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on April 21, 2026, that two builders' associations challenging a Biden-era executive order mandating project labor agreements on federal construction projects worth $35 million or more are not likely to prevail on any of their statutory or constitutional claims.
The decision matters for employers in the construction sector who have long resisted mandatory union arrangements as a condition of doing business with the federal government. At its core, the case pits open-shop contractors – those who operate without union affiliation – against a federal policy that presumptively requires them to enter into project labor agreements with labor organizations if they want to compete for the largest government construction jobs.
The executive order, signed by President Joseph Biden in February 2022, established a presumptive requirement that contractors and subcontractors on qualifying federal projects negotiate or become a party to a project labor agreement. These agreements standardize wages, hours, and terms of employment across every company and union on a job site. The order does allow exceptions – where the agreement would not advance economy and efficiency, where it would substantially reduce bidders and frustrate full and open competition, or where it would conflict with existing statutes, regulations, or executive orders – but challengers argued those exceptions had been treated as dead letters in practice.
The Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade group whose members mostly choose not to affiliate with unions, brought the challenge alongside its Florida First Coast Chapter. They argued the mandate deprived their members of significant federal contracting opportunities and forced them into associations with unions against their will.
A three-judge panel led by Chief Judge William Pryor agreed on the outcome, affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction, though Judge Abudu wrote separately to express disagreement with part of the majority's reasoning on presidential authority. On the competition question, the court found that the exceptions written into the order preserved the possibility of open bidding and that their mere existence on the face of the order was enough to defeat a facial challenge. On presidential authority, the court found the Federal Property Act gives the President substantial discretion to set conditions on government contracts, and that managing labor on federal construction sites falls within that authority. The court also noted that multiple presidents – from George H.W. Bush through Donald Trump – have used executive authority to shape policy on project labor agreements, in one direction or another.
The First Amendment claim failed as well. The court found that entering into a contractual relationship with a union on a construction project amounts to an interaction, not the kind of forced expressive association that triggers constitutional protection. The associations never argued that their members were engaged in any expressive activity that union involvement would disrupt.
One of the more notable details in the case is a political one. While the appeal was pending, Russell Vought, the Trump administration's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, issued a memorandum in June 2025 confirming that the Biden executive order remains in effect. That bipartisan continuity removed any expectation that a change in administration would resolve the dispute.
The ruling is not the end of the road. It affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction, meaning the underlying case is still alive in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The associations could seek further review. But for now, the mandate remains in effect.
