Second Court Halts Biden-Harris Regulation On Union Rights For Foreign Workers

A second U.S. federal court has issued an injunction against a Biden administration rule that aimed to grant collective bargaining rights to certain foreign workers, excluding similar rights for American workers in similar positions.

A federal rule that sought to extend collective bargaining rights to foreign H-2A visa workers while excluding American farm workers has been blocked in four states by U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves.

In September 2023, the Department of Labor proposed changes to the H-2A visa program, which primarily affects agricultural workers from abroad. This program has seen significant growth, with nearly 300,000 H-2A visa workers imported in 2022, a sharp increase from over 16,000 workers in 1997.

By April 2024, these proposed changes were finalized, introducing provisions that allowed these workers collective bargaining rights, previously not granted. The rule aimed to empower H-2A visa holders against potential employer retaliation but did not extend these rights to their American counterparts in the agricultural sector.

Judge Criticizes Overreach Without Congressional Approval

On a Monday, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves in Kentucky acted against this rule, providing a preliminary injunction that prevents its implementation in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and Alabama. This judicial block is pivotal as it directly challenges the administrative actions by the Department of Labor.

Judge Reeves criticized the rule for bypassing necessary Congressional approval and for conflicting with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

He remarked, “The Final Rule not so sneakily creates substantive collective bargaining rights for H-2A agricultural workers through the ‘prohibitions’ it places on their employers,” highlighting the sneaky manner in which these rights were granted.

His ruling emphasized that the provisions were framed as expansions of anti-retaliation policies which in effect, granted new substantive rights without proper legislative backing, thereby illegally contravening established labor laws.

States Respond to Federal Overreach

Before this ruling in Kentucky, another injunction was granted in August by a federal judge in Georgia. This earlier judicial decision blocked the rule's implementation across multiple states including Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, and Arkansas among others, marking a significant pushback against the administration's policy.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, reacting to the latest injunction, supported Judge Reeves' decision. He said, “This is a win for the rule of law in particular to putting a halt to an attempt from an administrative agency to legislate without the consent of Congress.”

Morrisey's statement reflects a broader critique shared by opponents of the rule, who argue that the Department of Labor had overstepped its authority with these regulatory changes.

Implications for Labor and Immigration Policy

The debate over this rule touches on significant themes in both labor and immigration policy. By granting collective bargaining rights exclusively to H-2A visa workers, the administration's initiative raised questions about the equity and scope of labor rights in the U.S.

The Department of Labor has not yet responded to the injunctions, but the implications of these legal setbacks are significant. They might hinder further similar attempts to adjust labor rights via federal regulations without going through Congress.

This legal battle underscores the complex interplay between immigration and labor regulations and sets a critical precedent for how such policies are implemented and challenged in court.