Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—A dozen states back UFW’s bid to block DOL rule lowering H-2A wage rates for agricultural workers, (Jul 13, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

The UFW and a group of farm workers sued the Trump administration in November, arguing that the administration’s wage cut rule violates the federal statute governing the H-2A agricultural guest worker program.

Last week, a coalition of 12 states led by California and Minnesota filed an amicus brief supporting the United Farm Workers’ (UFW) motion for summary judgment in a challenge to a U.S. Department of Labor rule that the states say unlawfully lowers wages for agricultural workers and shifts costs onto state governments. The UFW, UFW Foundation, and 18 individual farm workers sued the Trump administration in November 2025, arguing that the Trump administration’s wage cut rule is a violation of the federal statute governing the H-2A agricultural guest worker program, which is required to prevent an adverse effect on the jobs and wages of local workers.

The brief, filed July 8 in United Farm Workers v. U.S. Department of Labor, urges the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to permanently enjoin a 2025 interim final rule (IFR) revising the methodology used to calculate the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR), the wage floor intended to protect domestic workers from wage depression caused by the hiring of temporary foreign agricultural workers through the H-2A visa program.

New method, contrary to INA. According to the states, the rule abandons longstanding wage-setting practices by adopting a new AEWR methodology, creating lower-paying job categories, and allowing housing-related adjustments that reduce worker pay. The coalition argues that the changes are contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act’s requirement that the employment of H-2A workers not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the rule “is a direct attack on the wages and livelihoods of our farmworkers” and accused the administration of weakening worker protections in an effort to address labor shortages through cheaper labor.

The states’ brief places the challenged rule in the context of the historical evolution of agricultural guest-worker programs, arguing that Congress enacted protections such as the AEWR in response to abuses associated with earlier programs, including the Bracero Program. The amici contend that the DOL’s new approach revives incentives for employers to rely on lower-paid foreign labor and risks depressing wages for domestic farmworkers.

Lower labor costs will not address problem. The coalition also disputes the DOL’s rationale that lower labor costs are needed to address farm labor shortages. Citing research involving California farmers, the brief argues that employers historically have responded to labor shortages primarily by raising wages rather than reducing them. The states note that wage increases have not prevented agricultural profitability and point to similar labor-market responses in other industries, including health care and technology, where higher compensation has been used to attract workers.

Public comment needed. In addition to challenging the substance of the rule, the states contend that the DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing the IFR without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. According to the brief, that process deprived states and other stakeholders of the opportunity to address significant economic and administrative consequences associated with the rule.

The amici also argue that lower farmworker wages could increase reliance on state-administered programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, and school meal programs. The brief notes that agricultural workers already earn relatively modest incomes and estimates that the rule could reduce annual earnings by roughly $4,000 to $5,000 for affected workers, potentially pushing more households toward poverty-level eligibility thresholds.

Added burdens on states. The states further contend that the rule’s expected expansion of H-2A employment would impose additional administrative burdens on state workforce agencies and increase demands on state enforcement of housing, transportation, workplace-safety, and anti-discrimination laws. The brief points to longstanding concerns about the adequacy of farmworker housing and transportation safety, as well as prior enforcement actions involving H-2A employers.

The coalition consists of the attorneys general of California, Minnesota, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. The states ask the court to grant UFW’s summary judgment motion and permanently block implementation of the rule.

The lawsuit was filed in federal district court in California; the case is No. 1:25-cv-01614.

News: LitigationNewsTrends WageHour AgencyNews FederalRegulations FederalLegislation ImmigrationNews