The Protect Local Farms Act amends Section 18 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 218) to add a new preemption clause: the FLSA will preempt any State law that provides a maximum workweek for employees “employed in agriculture” of less than 60 hours. The bill also edits the introductory language of Section 18(a) to point readers to the new clause.
This is a narrow — but consequential — federal intervention in what is normally a state labor-policy area. By removing the ability of states to set lower maximum-workweek limits for agricultural employees, the bill would limit states’ tools for restricting hours on farms and expand the range of hours agricultural employers may lawfully require without running afoul of state maximum-week rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 29 U.S.C. 218 to insert a new subsection that preempts state laws imposing a maximum workweek for agricultural employees that is less than 60 hours. It also alters the opening sentence of Section 18(a) to reference the new exception.
Who It Affects
State labor regulators, farms and agribusinesses that employ agricultural workers, and the agricultural workforce — including seasonal and migrant laborers — are directly affected. Employers will gain breathing room where state limits are currently stricter than 60 hours.
Why It Matters
The measure creates a federal ceiling on states’ ability to cap agricultural workweeks, narrowing state authority on hours regulation while leaving intact other state labor rules. For compliance officers and counsel, it changes the interplay between state hour caps and federal law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a surgical change to the FLSA’s preemption language. It keeps the existing framework of Section 18 but adds a new, specific preemption: any state statute that sets a maximum workweek for people “employed in agriculture” of less than 60 hours is displaced by federal law.
Practically, that means a state law that, for example, defines a weekly maximum of 40 or 48 hours for farmworkers would be unenforceable to the extent it conflicts with the new federal limitation.
The drafting ties the rule to the statutory phrase “employees employed in agriculture,” so the existing FLSA definitions and tests for who counts as agricultural labor will control which workers fall inside the rule. The bill does not amend the FLSA’s pay provisions (for example, overtime pay formulas or exempt/nonexempt classifications), nor does it create a federal requirement that employers schedule up to 60 hours — it simply prevents states from imposing lower maximum-week thresholds for agricultural employees.Because the text is brief, it leaves several interpretive questions open.
It addresses only state “maximum workweek” provisions; states retain authority to regulate by other means — for example, by mandating rest breaks, setting daily hour limits, imposing industry-specific safety standards, or enacting minimum-wage rules that apply to farmworkers. The amendment’s narrow focus also invites litigation over what counts as a state “maximum workweek” and whether related scheduling or overtime constructs are covered.Compliance teams should map current state maximum-week rules for agriculture against the 60-hour ceiling and anticipate a change in enforcement priorities if this language becomes law.
Labor agencies, employer counsel, and unions will need to consider how other state protections interact with the new preemption and whether states will seek alternative regulatory levers to address long agricultural shifts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 18 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 218) by adding a new subsection (c) that creates the preemption.
It bars any State law that provides for a maximum workweek for employees “employed in agriculture” of less than 60 hours from being effective where it conflicts with the FLSA.
The text changes the opening of current subsection (a) to add the phrase “Except as provided in subsection (c),” signaling a narrow, targeted exception to the existing non-preemption language.
The bill does not alter FLSA overtime pay triggers, wage rates, exemption tests, or definitions; it only addresses state maximum-workweek limits for agricultural employees.
Because it uses the FLSA phrase “employed in agriculture,” whether a worker is covered will turn on the FLSA’s existing statutory and regulatory definitions of agricultural employment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the “Protect Local Farms Act.” This is a conventional short-title clause with no substantive legal effect, but it frames the bill’s intent and will appear in enactment citations.
Introductory text modified to create an exception reference
The bill revises the first sentence of existing subsection (a) by inserting the qualifier “Except as provided in subsection (c),” which signals that the longstanding nonpreemption language is now subject to a new, narrow federal preemption. This drafting choice isolates the new rule rather than reworking Section 18 wholesale, which may affect statutory interpretation: courts will treat the new clause as a limited carve-out rather than a reinterpretation of the statute’s overall preemption posture.
Express preemption of state maximum-workweek laws below 60 hours for agriculture
Subsection (c) states that the FLSA “shall preempt any State law that provides for a maximum workweek for employees employed in agriculture of less than 60 hours.” The provision is narrowly focused on state laws that specify a maximum workweek; it does not mention daily limits, overtime pay rates, hazard protections, or other dimensions of labor law. That narrow scope leaves room for states to continue using other regulatory tools but creates a clear conflict point for any state that has adopted or is considering a statutory maximum week shorter than 60 hours for farmworkers.
How the amendment interacts with existing FLSA definitions and state regulation
By referencing agricultural employees without defining them, the bill implicitly relies on the FLSA’s current statutory and regulatory definitions to determine coverage. Consequently, disputes over who counts as an agricultural employee — seasonal vs. processing workers, H-2A workers, family labor exceptions — will determine the preemption’s reach. The provision also leaves intact other state labor regulations that do not take the form of a statutory maximum workweek, potentially pushing states to regulate hours through alternate instruments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Large and industrial-scale agricultural employers — they gain protection from stricter state maximum-workweek caps and therefore have greater scheduling flexibility where state rules were previously more restrictive.
- Regional agribusiness supply chains (packers, processors, distributors) — they benefit indirectly from reduced risk of conflicting state hour limits across jurisdictions, simplifying interstate operations and labor planning.
- Employers that rely on seasonal and migrant labor (including H‑2A program users) — these employers face lower risk of state-level curbs on weekly hours that could complicate harvest and planting schedules.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agricultural employees, especially those in states that currently cap weekly hours below 60 — they may face longer allowed workweeks and associated fatigue, safety, and health risks if employers increase shift lengths.
- State labor departments and legislatures — the bill reduces a regulatory tool for managing working hours in agriculture, potentially forcing states to redesign protections or bring new regulatory or enforcement strategies.
- Farmworker advocacy groups and public-health agencies — they bear the compliance and advocacy burden of countering longer hours through policies other than statutory maximum-week rules, and may need to litigate definitional boundaries.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between uniform federal clearance for agricultural scheduling (favoring employer flexibility and interstate uniformity) and state authority to protect worker health and safety through tighter hour limits; the bill chooses uniformity and employer flexibility but does so without adding federal worker protections, leaving unresolved whether efficiency gains come at the cost of worker welfare and state regulatory prerogatives.
The bill’s brevity creates immediate interpretive gaps. It targets only “State law that provides for a maximum workweek,” but many state protections take different forms: mandatory overtime pay at lower thresholds, daily-hour caps, mandatory rest periods, or contractor-liability regimes.
Courts will need to decide whether those alternative mechanisms are functionally equivalent to a maximum workweek and thus preempted. The bill’s reliance on the FLSA phrase “employed in agriculture” funnels coverage disputes into existing statutory tests — an area already fraught with litigation over seasonal work, processing, and mixed-job roles.
There are policy trade-offs the text does not address. The amendment does not create any compensating federal protections (higher overtime pay, mandated breaks, or safety standards) to offset longer permissible hours.
That raises questions about whether the preemption will incentivize longer shifts without improving pay or safety, and whether states will respond by using other labor statutes or administrative rules to limit harms. Finally, the short amendment invites preemption litigation: plaintiffs and states may argue either that the new clause is unconstitutional as an improper federal intrusion on police powers, or that it should be narrowly read to avoid displacing longstanding state protections — outcomes that will shape how broadly the provision operates in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.