A federal judge has halted a controversial rule from the Biden-Harris administration that aimed to grant collective bargaining rights to foreign farm workers under the H-2A visa program.

The rule, which was set to go into effect, would have excluded American farm workers from these same rights, sparking a legal battle led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, as Breitbart reports, and the judge’s decision temporarily stops the rule from being enforced in 17 states.

In September 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a significant change to the H-2A visa program, which allows foreign workers to fill temporary agricultural jobs in the United States.

This proposed rule aimed to extend collective bargaining rights specifically to H-2A visa holders, leaving out American workers from similar protections. The rule was finalized in April 2024, drawing swift criticism and legal challenges.

Kansas Attorney General Leads Multi-State Lawsuit

In June, Kobach, supported by attorneys general from 16 other states, filed a lawsuit to block the implementation of the rule. The lawsuit argued that the rule unfairly discriminated against American workers by granting foreign laborers rights that U.S. citizens did not have.

Kobach emphasized the importance of maintaining equality under the law, stating that the administration was prioritizing foreign workers over Americans.

“The Biden-Harris administration has taken an America Last position,” Kobach said. “They were trying to give alien ag workers rights that Americans do not have. That’s why Kansas took the lead in filing this lawsuit. The rule of law has prevailed.”

Judge Issues Injunction Against Labor Rule

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood issued a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking the rule from taking effect in the 17 states involved in the lawsuit.

The states affected by this injunction include Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

Judge Wood's ruling focused on the legal basis of the rule, noting that it created rights that Congress had not explicitly granted.

“The issue before the Court is whether the Final Rule creates a right not previously bestowed by Congress,” Wood wrote. “The Court finds it does so… Regardless of the terminology used in the Final Rule… the Final Rule provides for agricultural workers’ right to participate in concerted activity to further their interests. That is a right that Congress has not created by statute.”

Legal Battle Over Workers’ Rights

The ruling underscores the tension between federal authority and state rights, particularly in labor matters that directly impact state economies. The preliminary injunction means that the rule cannot be enforced until further notice, giving states time to argue that such a significant change should come from Congress, not through executive action.

This legal battle is a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the rights of foreign versus domestic workers, particularly in the agricultural sector, where labor shortages have driven increased reliance on H-2A visa workers. The administration’s rule aimed to provide these foreign workers with the ability to negotiate better working conditions and wages collectively. However, the exclusion of American workers from these protections raised concerns about fairness and legality.

Implications for Future Labor Policies

The court’s decision has broad implications for labor policies under the current administration. It highlights the challenges of implementing sweeping changes through executive action, especially when those changes appear to favor one group of workers over another. As this case proceeds, it will likely influence future labor regulations and the balance of rights between foreign and domestic workers.

The preliminary injunction is not a final ruling on the legality of the rule. The case will continue to be litigated, and the outcome could set a significant precedent for how labor rights are extended to different classes of workers in the United States.

Conclusion: A Victory for States Challenging Federal Overreach

The federal court’s decision to block the Biden-Harris administration’s rule is seen as a victory for the 17 states that challenged it.

The case highlights the importance of maintaining a balance between federal regulations and state interests, particularly in areas as critical as labor rights. As the legal process unfolds, the outcome of this case could have lasting effects on the future of labor law in the United States.

The injunction ensures that, for now, American and foreign workers are treated equally under the law, at least in the 17 states involved. The ruling also serves as a reminder that significant changes to workers’ rights are ultimately the purview of Congress, not the executive branch.