A federal judge in California has struck down most of the Trump administration's rewrite of the wage rules for H-2A seasonal farmworkers. On August 26, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kirk E.
Sherriff of the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment against the U.S. Department of Labor, holding that its 2025 interim final rule reshaping the Adverse Effect Wage Rate was unlawful, according to Courthouse News Service's report on the ruling. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate, or AEWR, is the minimum hourly wage an employer must pay guest workers on H-2A visas — and the domestic workers alongside them — so that hiring foreign labor does not undercut local pay. One catch matters immediately: the judge sent the rule back to the Labor Department without wiping it off the books, so the lower rates are still being paid today.
Table of Contents
- What the court actually decided
- Why the Labor Department rewrote the rule in the first place
- How much money is at stake
- Why wages did not go back up on the day of the ruling
- What to watch next
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the court actually decided
The judge's central finding was procedural. The Labor Department issued the rule as an "interim final rule" on an emergency basis, skipping the public notice-and-comment period that the Administrative Procedure Act normally requires before a federal agency changes a binding rule. The court found the department lacked adequate justification for that shortcut on most of what it changed, as DTN/Progressive Farmer reported.
Beyond the process, four specific pieces of the rule were held arbitrary and capricious — the legal standard for an agency decision that does not rest on reasoned analysis. Per the Western Growers Association, those were the new two-tier Skill Level I/II wage structure, the housing adjustment folded into the AEWR calculation, the use of Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics data as the wage source, and the "greater than 50%" rule for classifying which occupation a worker falls under. Those four are the machinery of the wage cut, not side details. The skill tiers let employers pay a lower entry-level rate for work previously priced at a single rate; the occupational-classification rule governs which job code, and therefore which wage, a mixed-duty farm job is assigned.
Why the Labor Department rewrote the rule in the first place
The AEWR had historically been set from the USDA's Farm Labor Survey, a long-running government survey of what farm employers actually pay. USDA discontinued that survey in 2025, as Michigan Farm News reported, leaving the wage formula without its data source.
The Labor Department cited that gap as the emergency justifying immediate action without public comment. The court did not accept that the loss of one data set justified bypassing rulemaking procedure for the full scope of changes the department made — including substantive choices, like adding skill tiers, that go well beyond swapping in a replacement number.
How much money is at stake
The lawsuit was brought by the United Farm Workers, which says the rule cut some farmworkers' pay by as much as $7 an hour depending on the state. The department's own regulatory analysis projected that the rule would shift $2.46 billion a year in wages from workers to employers, according to Greenhouse Grower's account of the decision. Grower organizations see the same figures from the other side.
The National Council of Agricultural Employers said the ruling revives what it called an "existential threat" to farmers' ability to afford H-2A labor — a program many fruit, vegetable and nursery operations depend on for a harvest crew. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who had formally opposed the rule and backed the UFW alongside a dozen other states, issued a statement welcoming the court's conclusion that the wage-lowering rule was illegal. His office's position is posted on the California Department of Justice site.
📨 Get Free News Stories Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
Why wages did not go back up on the day of the ruling
This is the part most easily misread. A court that finds a rule unlawful can vacate it — erase it, returning the prior rule to force — or it can remand without vacatur, leaving the rule operating while the agency fixes it. Judge Sherriff chose the second, so the reduced rates remain in effect for now rather than reverting automatically.
The court directed the Labor Department to promptly develop and publish a new AEWR methodology and replacement wage rates consistent with the decision. Until that happens, the current numbers stand. Two practical consequences follow:.
- Workers get no retroactive restoration of lost pay from this order alone. Recovering back wages would require a separate remedy that this decision does not grant.
- Employers cannot treat today's rates as stable. A replacement methodology is coming, and the four invalidated elements are the ones that pushed rates down — so the likely direction of the next rate is upward.
What to watch next
The immediate document to watch for is the Labor Department's replacement rulemaking. Because the court faulted the agency for skipping notice and comment, a compliant rewrite would normally publish a proposed rule and open a comment docket — a point at which growers, worker advocates and state attorneys general can all file. The other open question is the data source.
With the Farm Labor Survey discontinued, any new methodology must either revive an equivalent survey, defend a different data set on the record, or build something new. The court rejected the department's reliance on OEWS data as applied here, which narrows the options it can reach for without a fuller explanation. If you work under an H-2A contract or employ workers on one, the practical step now is to track the department's published AEWR for your state and occupation rather than assuming either the old or the current figure will hold. The rule that set today's number has been declared unlawful; the number itself has not yet changed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling raise farmworker wages immediately?
No. The judge remanded the rule to the Labor Department without vacating it, so current rates continue until the department publishes a replacement methodology and new rates.
Who does the AEWR cover?
It sets the minimum wage for H-2A seasonal guest workers and, in practice, protects the pay of domestic farmworkers doing the same jobs from being undercut.
Can workers recover the wages they lost under the rule?
Not through this order. It directs the agency to rewrite the rule going forward and does not award retroactive pay.
You Might Also Like
- Judge blocks Ohio voter citizenship rule, raising questions about Utah election law
- West Virginia Supreme Court dismisses case against Kanawha County judge
- How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work