This case was brought by 19 states, a farm in Georgia, and a Georgia agricultural trade organization to challenge a regulation issued by the Department of Labor in April 2024 to modestly improve workplace protections against exploitation for H-2A agricultural guest workers. Plaintiffs complain about one aspect of the rule that newly requires employers to respect efforts of the H-2A farmworkers to self-organize and to engage in collective action. The suit alleges that the regulation did not go through required procedures and conflicts with federal law, particularly the National Labor Relations Act, which exempts agricultural workers from its protections. Plaintiffs are led by longtime anti-immigrant advocate Kris Kobach, who is now the attorney general of Kansas, which is why Kansas is the first-named plaintiff even though the case was filed in the Southern District of Georgia.
In early July 2024, two individuals and Centro de los Derechos Del Migrante (an immigrants’ rights organization) moved to intervene in the case as defendants so that they could join the federal government in defending the regulation. That motion was denied on July 19, 2024.
Shortly after filing suit, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, asking Judge Wood to block the regulation while the case proceeds to final judgment.
On August 26, 2024—and after briefing and oral argument—Judge Wood granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the regulation within the geographic limits of the 19 plaintiff states. The next day, the Biden Administration filed a motion for reconsideration asking Judge Wood to lift the injunction as to those parts of the regulation that the Plaintiffs do not challenge. Judge Wood denied that motion on August 29.
In late September 2024, the parties jointly moved for the district court to issue a briefing schedule that would have the case fully briefed and ready for final judgment in late November 2024. The federal government has until late October to appeal the preliminary injunction, but the joint request to go directly to final judgment strongly suggests that it will not do so.
Technical summary
The Complaint asserts four claims, alleging that the regulation: (1) conflicts with the NLRA; (2) exceeds the authority conferred by the Immigration and Nationality Act (specifically IRCA)); (3) violates the “major questions” doctrine; (4) is arbitrary and capricious because it was insufficiently explained.
Judge Wood expressly did not reach the question of the state’s standing or whether they would be irreparably injured by the regulation, on the ground that there was no dispute that the two private plaintiffs would be injured.
Latest Updates
Full Timeline and Documents
- 06/10/2024
