Eleventh Circuit Review—Reviewed: Federal Vs. State Action, Spirit Security Fees, and More

Key Takeaways

• State‑funded detention not a “major federal action” under NEPA
• Spirit must remit $2.8 M security fees despite expired credits
• Project labor agreement mandate survives injunction challenge
• Court limits NEPA reach for mixed‑funding projects
• Ruling clarifies presidential discretion in federal construction

Pulse Analysis

The Eleventh Circuit’s reversal of the injunction against Florida’s so‑called “Alligator Alcatraz” highlights a growing judicial reluctance to extend NEPA’s reach to projects that, while financed by a state, lack direct federal control. By emphasizing that the only federal involvement was a decision not to conduct an environmental review, the panel reinforced the 2023 NEPA amendment’s requirement that both funding and control be present for a non‑federal action to be treated as federal. This nuance will likely affect future infrastructure initiatives that rely on state‑level financing but anticipate federal reimbursement, narrowing the scope for environmental challenges.

In the airline arena, the unanimous ruling against Spirit Airlines sends a clear signal that the statutory fee‑collection framework is robust, even when airlines retain fees from canceled tickets or expired travel credits. The court’s reliance on the plain‑text requirement to remit collected fees, coupled with longstanding CBP guidance, underscores that airlines cannot sidestep obligations by reinterpreting “passenger” definitions. For carriers, the decision translates into heightened compliance costs and a reminder to align internal refund policies with federal fee‑remittance mandates, especially as the industry navigates post‑pandemic financial pressures.

The affirmation of the injunction denial concerning the executive order on project labor agreements (PLAs) reaffirms presidential discretion in shaping federal construction labor standards. By finding the order compatible with the Competition in Contracting Act’s open‑competition principles and the Federal Property Act’s broad “necessary” language, the court validates the administration’s ability to embed unionized labor requirements into federal contracts. This outcome bolsters the Biden administration’s broader labor agenda and signals to contractors that PLAs will remain a prevailing condition in federal procurement, influencing bidding strategies and labor‑cost calculations across the construction sector.