A federal judge in California has struck down the Labor Department’s H-2A wage rule, ruling that the Trump administration unlawfully lowered minimum wages for temporary foreign agricultural workers without adequately protecting domestic farmworkers or following proper federal rulemaking procedures.
A federal court has intervened in the ongoing debate over agricultural guest worker compensation, issuing a decisive ruling that blocks key components of an overhaul to the H-2A visa program. U.S. District Judge Kirk Sherriff handed down a 28-page order that struck down most of the Trump administration’s rewrite of farmworker wage rules, finding that the federal agency pushed through changes that lowered required minimum wages without providing a reasoned explanation for how the new methodology would protect domestic laborers.
Challenging the H-2A Wage System and the Adverse Effect Wage Rate
At the center of the legal dispute is the Adverse Effect Wage Rate, or AEWR, which serves as the minimum wage threshold employers must meet when hiring foreign workers through the agricultural guest worker program. Under federal law, the Department of Labor must ensure that employing temporary foreign workers does not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers performing similar jobs.
For decades, the government calculated these wage floors using U.S. Department of Agriculture farm labor data and regional averages. However, after the USDA discontinued its Farm Labor Survey, the Labor Department issued an interim final rule that immediately altered how wages were computed. According to the United Farm Workers, the rule cut many farm workers’ wages by up to $7 per hour, depending on the state. The DOL estimated that the policy would annually transfer $2.46 billion in wages from workers to agricultural employers.
Judicial Findings on Skill Tiers and Housing Adjustments
Judge Sherriff determined that three of the four challenged components of the rule were arbitrary and capricious, and that the agency lacked good cause to bypass the standard public notice-and-comment process. The court focused heavily on the introduction of a two-tier skill system. The Labor Department’s own projections indicated that roughly 92 percent of H-2A positions would fall into the lowest skill tier, with wages pegged to the 17th percentile of workers in that occupation rather than broader historical averages.
The court also scrutinized a new housing adjustment that effectively reduced required wages by deducting the estimated value of employer-provided housing from the AEWR. Because federal regulations already require growers to provide housing for H-2A workers at no cost, the judge concluded that reducing wages to account for housing could create financial incentives for employers to favor foreign labor over domestic workers who do not receive employer-provided housing in the same manner. Furthermore, the administration implemented the changes without a comment period, asserting the policy would reduce farmers’ labor costs by $24 billion over the coming decade.
Worker Impact and Reactions from Labor Organizations
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included 18 individual farmworkers, the United Farm Workers, and the UFW Foundation, supported by amicus briefs from 13 state attorneys general, five former Secretaries of Labor, and several members of Congress. Workers testified about the economic realities in agricultural regions like the Yakima Valley in Washington State.
“Farmworkers’ jobs are very difficult. Even so, there are many here in Sunnyside who look for work but can’t find any. More and more, the growers just want to hire H2-A workers, who they can keep trapped on their property, instead of us local workers, who live here and who pay taxes here and have decades of experience.”
Crisanto Serrano, farmworker and plaintiff, via Newsweek
Labor leaders welcomed the judicial outcome while emphasizing the ongoing struggle for equitable compensation. Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers, highlighted the significance of the ruling in a press statement.
Next Steps and Potential Backpay Liability
Rather than immediately vacating the rule—a move the court noted could destabilize the agricultural labor market by leaving regions without any established wage rates—Judge Sherriff ordered the Labor Department to develop a new wage-setting methodology.
While the judge deferred a final ruling on financial restitution, the court’s order instructs the Labor Department to notify employers that they may eventually face backpay liability for the difference between the invalidated wage rates and the new lawful rates once established.
Продолжение темы
