NC Chamber files brief in California case challenging H-2A visa rules

North Carolina’s top business lobbying group is urging a federal court in California to reject an injunction that would block a rule governing the H-2A agricultural worker visa program. The group argues an injunction would “create significant uncertainty” for farmers in North Carolina and other states preparing for the 2026 growing season.

The NC Chamber filed a friend-of-the-court brief in late January in the case United Farm Workers v. US Department of Labor.

The chamber, “in partnership with more than 25 agricultural organizations from across the country,” supports an October 2025 rule developed by the Labor Department under President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a news release Tuesday from the business group. The rule focuses on the adverse effect wage rate, a figure calculated by the federal government. It sets a minimum hourly wage farmers are required to pay to use H-2A labor.

Plaintiffs oppose the new Labor Department rule. Their injunction would block the federal government from using it while the litigation moves forward.

Roughly 40 years old, H-2A allows farmers to bring agricultural workers into the country on a “temporary, seasonal basis.” The government must confirm ahead of time that there are not enough American workers available to fill the jobs. H-2A workers return to their home countries after the agricultural season.

“The underlying case involves a challenge to the Trump Administration’s efforts to address aspects of the temporary agricultural guestworker program that hurt American farmers,” according to the Chamber’s news release.

Plaintiffs seek to block the new AEWR rule nationwide, the Chamber argued. A court ruling favoring the plaintiffs would “force the agency to abandon its existing wage framework in favor of an undefined new approach that could create significant uncertainty for agricultural employers nationwide and disrupt planning for the 2026 growing season,” according to the news release. “Thousands of farmers have already been assigned H-2A wage rates for 2026, calculated operating costs, secured capital to finance their operations, and begun hiring workers under wage rates approved by DOL.”

“The H-2A program plays a vital role in supporting agricultural production across the United States,” said Ray Starling, NC Chamber general counsel and president of the NC Chamber Legal Institute. “Employers need a system that provides reliable access to labor, delivers certainty for businesses and workers alike, and supports the production of safe, affordable, and domestically grown food for American families.” 

The Labor Department revised its H-2A rule and the AEWR methodology after independent research “found the inflationary wage costs associated with H-2A participation had skyrocketed when compared to other major economic indices,” the Chamber reported. “The analysis concluded that using an AEWR that more closely reflects the economics of an agricultural industry that competes in a global market would better protect U.S. workers, support domestic food production, increase Americans’ consumption of domestically grown fruits and vegetables, create jobs, and strengthen rural economic growth.”

The 15-page Chamber brief challenged the plaintiffs’ arguments in two ways.

First, the brief argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring a lawsuit against the rule. “Plaintiffs … have failed to establish that they ‘have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision,’” according to the brief. “Without a ‘clear showing of each element of standing,’ including ‘an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent,’ Plaintiffs cannot obtain preliminary relief.”

Beyond standing, the NC Chamber argues that Labor officials acted within their authority under federal law to create the new rule.

“Plaintiffs’ suggestion that DOL must set an AEWR at a level that is equal to or higher than it was the year before to avoid adverse effect is legally incorrect and overlooks the reality that the statute does not require the Secretary to issue an AEWR at all,” according to the brief. “Indeed, given the Secretary’s broad discretion in carrying out her narrow mandate, she could abandon the AEWR altogether and replace it with some other data set or criteria to guide DOL in determining whether the proposed employment of foreign nationals with an H-2A visa would result in adverse effect.”

“The statute provides the Secretary with significant discretion in carrying out her mandate, constrained only by her duty to balance the interests of farmers and workers and to sufficiently explain her rationale,” the btief continued. “Plaintiffs’ argument boils down to an apparent belief that the AEWR must operate like a one-way ratchet to deliver consistent wage increases to workers year after year, and that an adverse effect necessarily results from a failure to deliver such increases. There is no basis in law for Plaintiffs’ contention, Congress did not mandate such a result and no court has ever reached such a conclusion.”

“NC Chamber files brief in California case challenging H-2A visa rules” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.