Oregon Supreme Court declares ODOT's rules for ‘community workforce agreements' invalid
PORTLAND, Ore. () — The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled against the state transportation department in a case involving its enforcement of union labor requirements for certain projects.
The on Thursday that declared the Oregon Department of Transportation rule as invalid due to the process the agency used to establish it.
105 Oregon US Cellular workers to be laid off as company attempts to sell to T-Mobile
The case follows the 2021 passage of , which allows contracting agencies to enact regulations that 'designate certain public improvement contracts as community benefit contracts.' The measure also called on ODOT to establish community workforce agreements, or CWAs, with labor organizations while drafting these contracts.
Court documents show the Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America sued the agency in January 2024, claiming that it had failed to give the labor union an opportunity to review the CWAs for eight different projects — although a few of its members were on the two advisory committees for the agreement.
The complaint also alleged that ODOT neglected to share the drafted agreement with either of its committees before it was finalized. AGC argued the department is legally required to comply with the rulemaking procedures under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
In their recent opinion, Justice Bronson James and Justice Meagan Flynn said the transportation agency convened with its CWA Advisory Committee 11 times and twice with its Rules Advisory Committee. The justices commended the department's efforts to engage with stakeholders 'given the time constraints' — but they said it could have conducted even more outreach.
How would the SAVE Act impact PNW voters? Proof of citizenship explained
'Despite all this input and work undertaken by all the different stakeholders, labor organizations, and ODOT to develop both the CWA and the community benefit contract rule and pilot program, the majority finds that the ODOT process for the current version of the CWA required more opportunity for notice and comment,' the Oregon Supreme Court wrote.
KOIN 6 has reached out to the agency for a statement.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge determined OPM broke law with DOGE access to data
A federal judge granted an injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing databases at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The decision from U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, a Clinton appointee, found DOGE was unlawfully given access to sweeping databases that cover current and former federal employees and also contain information on prospective hires. 'Following President Trump's inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices,' Cote wrote. DOGE was given access to OPM data in the earliest days of the administration as the Trump team looked for ways to contact every federal employee — a task that was otherwise handled through each individual department or agency. That access was a steppingstone to later emailing employees to offer a government buyout and later to demand employees send weekly emails listing five accomplishments achieved. Cote determined that OPM violated the privacy act by giving DOGE access to the files and never showed a clear need to access the data. 'The plaintiffs have pointed to clear evidence that the DOGE agents did not need access to the records disclosed to them, much less the administrative access that they were given,' she wrote, noting that once DOGE was given access to the system, 'database administrators who were responsible for the normal functioning of those systems had their access revoked.' Cote also said DOGE's access violated the Administrative Procedures Act prohibition on arbitrary and capricious government actions. While Cote's decision enjoins DOGE access to the OPM system, the parties will meet Thursday to hammer out the details of the injunction. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge determined OPM broke law with DOGE access to data
A federal judge granted an injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing databases at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The decision from U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, a Clinton appointee, found DOGE was unlawfully given access to sweeping databases that cover current and former federal employees and also contain information on prospective hires. 'Following President Trump's inauguration, OPM granted broad access to many of those systems to a group of individuals associated with the Department of Government Efficiency ('DOGE'), even though no credible need for this access had been demonstrated. In doing so, OPM violated the law and bypassed its established cybersecurity practices,' Cote wrote. DOGE was given access to OPM data in the earliest days of the administration as the Trump team looked for ways to contact every federal employee — a task that was otherwise handled through each individual department or agency. That access was a steppingstone to later emailing employees to offer a government buyout and later to demand employees send weekly emails listing five accomplishments achieved. Cote determined that OPM violated the privacy act by giving DOGE access to the files and never showed a clear need to access the data. 'The plaintiffs have pointed to clear evidence that the DOGE agents did not need access to the records disclosed to them, much less the administrative access that they were given,' she wrote, noting that once DOGE was given access to the system, 'database administrators who were responsible for the normal functioning of those systems had their access revoked.' Cote also said DOGE's access violated the Administrative Procedures Act prohibition on arbitrary and capricious government actions. While Cote's decision enjoins DOGE access to the OPM system, the parties will meet Thursday to hammer out the details of the injunction.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
DOGE can access sensitive Social Security records, Supreme Court rules
The Department of Government Efficiency can have unimpeded access to sensitive Social Security records for millions of people, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. The justices granted the Trump administration's emergency request to lift a lower-court order that had blocked a DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration from viewing or obtaining personal information in the agency's systems. The court's majority provided no detailed explanation for its ruling, but in a three-paragraph unsigned order, the majority wrote: 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented. In a 10-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision creates 'grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' Trump administration lawyers claimed the DOGE team members needed unfettered access to Social Security's data in order to detect and halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the breadth of DOGE's access violated federal law and put the data at risk of intentional or unintentional disclosure. The legal fight over DOGE's access to Social Security data is one of several that broke out in the early weeks of Trump's second term as the budget-slashing team overseen by Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk fanned out across the federal government. In response to lawsuits, federal judges also limited DOGE access to sensitive databases at the Treasury and Education departments, as well as the Office of Personnel Management. Some of the restrictions have been eased over time as the Trump administration convinced the judges that adequate safeguards were in place to avoid disclosure of personal information. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, a Baltimore-based Obama appointee, blocked DOGE's access to Social Security's databases, which include tax and wage reports as well as retirement and disability payments. In her March ruling, she concluded that the access granted to the cost-cutting team violated the Privacy Act because agency officials did not show that it was necessary to include identifying information in order to carry out the search for fraudulent payments. Justice Department lawyers defending the move offered only 'cursory, circular statements' to justify the DOGE team's access, the judge said. However, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the limits Hollander imposed interfered with President Donald Trump's ability to carry out his 'critically important' agenda to eliminate wasteful spending and update archaic systems at federal agencies. 'Employees charged with modernizing government information systems and routing [sic] out fraud, waste, and abuse in data systems plainly need access to those systems,' Sauer wrote. 'District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads.' In her dissent Friday, Jackson said the government had presented 'next to nothing' to explain what harm the DOGE operation or the Social Security Administration would suffer if the limits the lower-court ordered remained in place. The Biden-appointed justice also contended that her conservative colleagues were bending the court's usual standards to allow the Trump administration to pursue its favored course of action. 'It seems as if the Court has truly lost its moorings,' Jackson wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'The Court is … unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.' Justice Elena Kagan also dissented from the court's order, but did not provide any explanation of her views. Among the projects DOGE staffers were working on at Social Security was one targeting improper payments to dead people. Trump has frequently falsely claimed that large numbers of deceased people receive Social Security checks, including earlier this year during a high-profile address in March to a joint session of Congress. 'One person is listed at 360 years of age … More than 100 years older than our country,' Trump said. 'But we're going to find out where that money is going, and it's not going to be pretty.' Musk also made staggering claims, suggesting in a social media post that 20 million people over 100 years of age were receiving Social Security. However, computer experts said most of the outlandishly implausible ages were the product of a default setting in the 60-year-old COBOL programming language, which interprets incomplete or missing age data as the system's oldest possible date in 1875. Musk's term as a special government employee ended last week with Trump hosting an Oval Office send-off for the tech entrepreneur. While the pair were upbeat and complimentary there, Musk's escalating attacks on Trump's budget bill currently before Congress led to a spectacular flame-out of the relationship in recent days, with Trump threatening to cut government contracts to Musk's businesses and Musk accusing Trump of delaying the release of FBI records that could be embarrassing to him.
