No. 24-232

Duke Bradford, et al. v. Department of Labor, et al.

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-08-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2)
Tags: administrative-law constitutional-delegation executive-power federal-contractors minimum-wage procurement-act
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw WageAndHour JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Procurement Act authorizes the President to require federal permittees to pay their employees a minimum wage and whether such delegation violates Article I of the Constitution

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, also known as the Procurement Act, exists to “provide the federal government with an economical and efficient system for .. . [p]rocuring and supplying property and nonpersonal services.” Toward that end, the Act created the General Services Administration to manage procurement and supply, and it allows the President to “prescribe policies and directives” he “considers necessary” to accomplish the Act’s purposes. In 2021, President Biden invoked this power to require most federal contractors to pay their employees a $15-per-hour minimum wage. The resulting rule, issued by the Department of Labor, extends even to small businesses, like Petitioner Arkansas Valley Adventure, that merely hold permits to conduct guided expeditions on federal land, but that neither procure property or services for, nor supply them to or on behalf of, the federal government. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Procurement Act authorizes the President to require federal permittees to pay their employees a minimum wage. 2. Whether the Procurement Act delegates lawmaking power to the Executive Branch in violation of Article I of the Constitution.

Docket Entries

2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-12-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-18
Reply of Duke Bradford, et al. submitted.
2024-12-18
2024-12-02
Brief of respondents Department of Labor, et al. in opposition filed.
2024-10-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 2, 2024.
2024-10-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 30, 2024 to December 2, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-09-30
2024-09-27
2024-09-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 30, 2024.
2024-09-12
Motion of U.S. Department of Labor, et al. for an extension of time submitted.
2024-09-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2024 to October 30, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2024)
2024-07-12
Application (24A7) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until August 28, 2024.
2024-07-02
Application (24A7) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 29, 2024 to September 12, 2024, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.

Attorneys

Duke Bradford, et al.
Steven M. SimpsonPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner
Steven M. SimpsonPacific Legal Foundation, Petitioner
Safari Club International
Regina Anne LennoxSafari Club International, Amicus
Regina Anne LennoxSafari Club International, Amicus
Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Amicus
Aaron Lloyd NielsonOffice of the Texas Attorney General, Amicus
U.S. Department of Labor, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent