H.J. Res. 154 is a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that targets the Department of Labor rule titled “Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H‑2A Nonimmigrants in Non‑Range Occupations in the United States” (90 Fed.
Reg. 47914, Oct. 2, 2025). The resolution states that Congress disapproves that specific rule and that the rule “shall have no force or effect.”
The resolution’s practical significance is procedural and immediate: a successful disapproval would remove the October 2025 methodology from the federal regulatory landscape, recreate uncertainty about which wage calculation governs H‑2A nonrange certifications, and invoke the CRA’s bar on reissuing substantially similar rules without new statutory authorization. That outcome matters to agricultural employers, state certifying agencies, H‑2A workers, and counsel who handle wage-determination and certification processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) to disapprove the Department of Labor’s published AEWR methodology and declares that the rule ‘‘shall have no force or effect.’' Under the CRA, disapproval nullifies the rule and triggers a prohibition on reissuing a substantially similar rule absent new statutory authorization.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include employers and recruiters who rely on H‑2A nonrange wage calculations, state workforce agencies that certify H‑2A job orders, the Department of Labor (which set the AEWR methodology), and H‑2A workers whose required minimum pay depends on the rule’s methodology.
Why It Matters
AEWR methodology determines the minimum wages required for foreign temporary agricultural workers and therefore shapes labor costs and hiring practices across seasonal agriculture. Using the CRA to erase an agency wage methodology is also administratively consequential: it limits the Department’s ability to preserve regulatory changes through reissuance and creates immediate compliance uncertainty for practitioners.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution consists of a single operative sentence: Congress disapproves the Department of Labor’s October 2, 2025 rule on how to calculate the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H‑2A nonrange occupations, and that rule will have no force or effect. The vehicle for that result is the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5), which authorizes Congress to pass a joint resolution reversing a recent agency rule so long as the resolution is enacted.
If the joint resolution becomes law, the targeted DOL methodology is removed from the federal register of effective regulations. That removal is legal and categorical for the specific regulation cited; it does not itself substitute a different wage methodology.
Practically, parties that were preparing to apply the October 2025 methodality—employers, certifying state agencies, and attorneys—must revert to whatever wage-setting regime applies in the absence of that rule (for example, the prior AEWR methodology or other applicable wage determinations), or await new guidance or rulemaking from the Department of Labor.The CRA carries an additional structural consequence: after disapproval, the agency is generally precluded from promulgating a new rule in substantially the same form unless Congress authorizes it by law. That constraint forces the Department either to abandon the approach instituted in October 2025, to craft a materially different methodology, or to seek explicit legislative authority to restore similar provisions.
The resolution itself does not direct any particular fallback wage calculation, nor does it address ongoing adjudications or certifications that relied on the now-disapproved methodology.Operationally, the resolution creates a short-term administrative problem: certifying agencies and employers must decide which wage basis to apply to pending and future H‑2A certifications, while DOL must decide whether to attempt a new rulemaking that differs materially or to issue transitional guidance. Those choices will determine whether the disapproval produces mere regulatory rollback, litigation over retroactivity and pending actions, or a longer-term change in how AEWRs are calculated.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution specifically disapproves the Department of Labor rule titled “Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H‑2A Nonimmigrants in Non‑Range Occupations in the United States,” published at 90 Fed. Reg. 47914 (Oct. 2, 2025).
It invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5) to declare that the cited rule ‘‘shall have no force or effect,’' which, if enacted, strips the rule of legal effect going forward.
The resolution does not prescribe an alternative AEWR or transitional mechanism—its text only nullifies the October 2025 methodology, leaving a gap that agencies and stakeholders must resolve administratively or through new legislation.
Under the CRA consequence embedded in the resolution, the Department of Labor would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless Congress later authorizes it by statute.
The joint resolution targets a single, identified rule and contains no provisions addressing the status of certifications, wage determinations, or administrative actions that were taken while the rule was in effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identification of rule and authority
The bill’s opening language identifies the rule by title and cites chapter 8 of title 5 as the statutory basis for congressional disapproval. That framing signals use of the Congressional Review Act rather than some other procedural device and narrows the resolution’s scope to the named rule and the statutory mechanism for reversal.
Disapproval and nullification
The operative sentence declares that Congress disapproves the Department of Labor’s specified AEWR methodology and states that ‘‘such rule shall have no force or effect.’' Practically, an enacted joint resolution under the CRA converts an active regulatory text into invalidated law for purposes of federal regulation, removing its binding effect going forward.
Bar on reissuance and limits on agency action
By invoking the CRA, the resolution carries the statute’s standard follow-on consequence: the agency generally cannot reissue a rule that is ‘‘substantially the same’’ as the disapproved rule unless Congress provides separate authorization. The resolution contains no exemptions, transitional instructions, or implementation text, so any operational details (for example, how to treat pending certifications) would be left to the Department of Labor and state certifiers to address after disapproval.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration 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
- Agricultural employers and farm labor contractors — they avoid whatever new wage-calculation obligations the October 2025 methodology would have imposed and reduce the near‑term compliance costs associated with adopting a new wage schedule.
- Employers who already budgeted under older AEWR calculations — they gain short-term cost stability if the disapproval restores prior practice rather than imposing the October 2025 rates.
- Legal and compliance advisors for agricultural businesses — disapproval eliminates a regulatory change they might have needed to implement quickly, buying time to reassess strategy and guidance.
Who Bears the Cost
- H‑2A workers who would have benefited from higher wages under the disapproved methodology — they may lose improved wage protections that the October 2025 rule sought to establish.
- State workforce agencies that certify H‑2A job orders — they face administrative burdens and uncertainty about which wage standard to apply to pending and new certifications.
- Department of Labor — the agency must decide whether to start over with a materially different rule, defend the change in litigation, or seek congressional authorization, imposing time and resource costs on DOL.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between democratic oversight and regulatory stability: Congress can use the CRA to veto an agency methodology it dislikes, protecting legislative prerogative and reacting to stakeholder concerns, but doing so risks operational instability and potential rollback of worker protections without providing a clear replacement—forcing a choice between political control and predictable, enforceable wage standards.
The resolution leaves several implementation questions unresolved. Most immediately, it contains no transitional language about how to treat H‑2A certifications, wage determinations, or employer actions that occurred while the October 2025 methodology was on the books.
That creates legal uncertainty: courts and agencies will need to sort whether actions taken under the now‑disapproved rule remain valid, whether employers who complied under the rule are entitled to safe harbor, and how retroactive repayment or liability claims should be treated.
A second tension concerns agency options after disapproval. The CRA’s bar on reissuance forces the Department of Labor to choose between (a) crafting a materially different methodology through notice-and-comment rulemaking, (b) seeking express congressional authorization to restore similar provisions, or (c) relying on interim guidance or existing, possibly less-detailed standards.
Each path has consequences: material changes invite fresh litigation and stakeholder pushback; seeking congressional action is slow and uncertain; interim guidance may not resolve legal disputes or satisfy stakeholders seeking durable rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.