Judge Finds Labor Department’s H-2A Wage Method Unlawful
A federal judge has found that the Labor Department unlawfully changed the method used to set wage floors for H-2A farmworkers, ordering the agency to create and publish a replacement methodology.
The summary-judgment order, signed August 25, 2026, in United Farm Workers v. U.S. Department of Labor, held that key parts of the department’s October 2, 2025 interim final rule were arbitrary and capricious. The court also found that the department lacked good cause to bypass notice-and-comment procedures for most of the challenged changes.
The decision does not immediately restore the previous wage schedule. The court left the current rates temporarily in place because vacating the rule immediately could eliminate existing wage floors and disrupt the national H-2A program.
What the court ordered
The Labor Department must promptly produce a new methodology for calculating H-2A adverse-effect wage rates, or AEWRs, and publish new rates under that methodology. The order requires the replacement approach to be consistent with the court’s findings.
The court also ordered the department to require employers to notify affected workers about the possibility of future wage adjustments. The potential adjustment period begins after the August 25 order and runs until the department publishes new AEWRs under a replacement methodology.
That is not the same as an immediate back-pay award. The court reserved the question of whether back pay should be paid, who qualifies and how much could be owed until new AEWRs exist. The order contemplates possible adjustments for qualifying H-2A workers and U.S. workers in corresponding employment who were paid below the new applicable rates during that period.
How H-2A wage floors work
Under the Labor Department’s rules, an H-2A employer generally must offer and pay the highest applicable wage among the AEWR, a prevailing wage, a collective-bargaining wage, or the applicable federal or state minimum wage.
AEWRs are state- or region-specific wage floors designed to prevent the hiring of temporary agricultural workers from depressing the wages and working conditions of similarly employed workers in the United States. Because the AEWR is often the highest applicable rate, a change in the federal calculation method can affect both H-2A workers and U.S. workers in corresponding jobs.
What changed in 2025
The October 2, 2025 rule replaced the longstanding approach of using a mean wage for farmworkers in a state or region. It adopted Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data, created two skill levels, added a housing adjustment for H-2A workers receiving employer-provided housing and applied a greater-than-50-percent rule for jobs involving more than one occupational classification.
The rule set Skill Level I at roughly the lower one-third of the wage distribution and Skill Level II at the full average wage for the applicable occupation. The Labor Department said the changes were intended to better match wages to job qualifications and address labor shortages and agricultural-industry concerns.
The court found the tier system, housing adjustment, use of Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data and greater-than-50-percent rule arbitrary and capricious. Among other problems, the judge said the department did not adequately explain how the new approach would satisfy its legal duty to prevent adverse effects on U.S. farmworker wages.
Why the notice-and-comment finding matters
Federal agencies ordinarily must publish a proposed rule and accept public comments before major regulations take effect. The Labor Department invoked an emergency “good cause” exception for the 2025 interim final rule, citing the discontinuation of the Agriculture Department’s Farm Labor Survey, a deadline for publishing annual rates and agricultural labor shortages.
The court accepted that the agency had a time-sensitive reason to select a replacement data source after the Farm Labor Survey was discontinued. But it found that the department did not show why the tier system, housing adjustment and greater-than-50-percent rule also had to be adopted without public participation.
The judge further found that the department had not adequately explained why employers could not continue hiring H-2A workers at the then-current rates while a new rule was developed.
Who could be affected
The ruling has national reach because the AEWR framework applies to H-2A agricultural jobs across the United States. It may affect qualifying temporary foreign workers and U.S. workers in corresponding employment, including workers performing substantially similar jobs for the same employers.
Workers should not assume that their paychecks change immediately. The existing rates remain temporarily in effect, and the court has not ordered every H-2A employer to make a payment now.
What remains unresolved
The Labor Department must develop and publish a replacement methodology, but the court did not prescribe a numerical wage schedule. Future rates could differ by state, occupation and job qualifications, depending on the method the agency adopts.
The court also has not decided the amount or process for any wage adjustments. Employers may face additional notice, recordkeeping and payment obligations if later proceedings establish that qualifying workers were underpaid relative to the new rates.
The Labor Department could appeal or seek further relief, and additional court filings may address the timing and implementation of the replacement methodology. For workers and employers, the key developments to watch are Labor Department notices, the new wage-setting rule and any court instructions on possible adjustments.
Sources
- U.S. District Court order in United Farm Workers v. U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Department of Labor H-2A Adverse Effect Wage Rates
- Federal Register H-2A wage methodology rule
- Los Angeles Times: Trump administration’s wage cuts for seasonal farmworkers ruled unlawful
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.