The joint resolution disapproves the Department of Labor rule titled “Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H‑2A Non‑immigrants in Non‑Range Occupations in the United States” (90 Fed. Reg. 47914, Oct. 2, 2025) and states that the rule “shall have no force or effect.” It invokes chapter 8 of title 5 (the Congressional Review Act) to accomplish that disapproval.
That matters because the AEWR sets a wage floor that directly shapes labor costs and worker pay in the H‑2A agricultural program. Nullifying the methodology will change how state workforce agencies, employers, and payroll/compliance teams calculate required wages, and it bars the Department from reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authority — a constraint with lasting regulatory consequences.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to invalidate a specific DOL rule revising the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) methodology for H‑2A non‑range occupations, declaring that rule to have no force or effect. Under the CRA, the resolution also triggers the statutory bar that prevents the agency from issuing a substantially identical rule in the future absent new legislation.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include employers that hire H‑2A non‑immigrant workers in non‑range agricultural roles (growers, nurseries, specialty crop producers), state workforce agencies that calculate AEWRs, the Employment and Training Administration at DOL, and the H‑2A workers whose minimum pay is tied to AEWRs. Labor lawyers, payroll teams, and compliance officers for agricultural employers will be the operational contacts for implementation.
Why It Matters
DOL’s AEWR methodology determines mandatory wage floors that flow through contracts, wage determinations, and job orders. Scrapping the methodology remakes those compliance baselines, creates a potential regulatory gap, and sets a precedent that Congress can use the CRA to veto technical wage‑setting rules — which may chill future agency adjustments to H‑2A wage calculations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This joint resolution identifies a single DOL action by title and Federal Register citation and declares that action null under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA lets Congress overturn a recent rule by passing a joint resolution of disapproval; when signed into law the resolution renders the rule void and places a statutory restriction on reissuing a substantially similar rule without new legislative authorization.
The targeted regulation updates how the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is calculated for H‑2A non‑immigrants working in non‑range occupations. AEWRs function as statewide or regional wage floors intended to prevent employers from undercutting U.S. workers’ wages when they hire temporary foreign agricultural labor.
Because AEWRs feed into job orders, contracts, and wage determinations, a change in methodology alters what employers must pay and how state agencies compute required rates.If enacted, the resolution would remove the October 2, 2025 methodology from the set of binding rules. Practically that forces DOL, state workforce agencies, and employers to revert to whatever wage‑setting method and guidance govern in the absence of that rule — which may be the prior methodology, interim guidance, or case‑by‑case determinations.
The CRA’s ban on reissuing a “substantially the same” rule raises an additional, longer‑term constraint on DOL: it cannot reintroduce the same formula without new authorization from Congress.Implementation will present immediate operational questions: which wage schedules apply to certifications and job orders issued while the rule was in effect; how state agencies should update published AEWR tables; and what payroll and contract adjustments employers must make. These questions will fall to DOL guidance, state agency notices, and likely litigation over retroactivity and the meaning of “substantially the same.” Compliance officers and labor counsel will need to track agency guidance and prepare for possible shifts to wage computations and enforcement priorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5) to disapprove the DOL rule and declares that rule “shall have no force or effect.”, The rule targeted is titled “Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H‑2A Non‑immigrants in Non‑Range Occupations in the United States” and is published at 90 Fed. Reg. 47914 (Oct. 2, 2025).
The joint resolution identifies the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor as the submitting agency for the rule.
A successful CRA disapproval not only nullifies the rule but bars the agency from issuing a new rule in “substantially the same” form absent intervening legislation, a separate statutory constraint built into the CRA.
The resolution is narrowly framed to the AEWR methodology for non‑range occupations; it does not, on its face, change H‑2A program statutory eligibility, certification procedures, or other DOL/H‑2A regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Identifies and disapproves the specific DOL rule
This clause names the exact rule by title and Federal Register citation and states that Congress disapproves it. Naming the rule is legally important: the CRA resolution must identify the specific rule being disapproved so that courts and agencies can pinpoint the action being nullified and separate it from unrelated regulatory activity.
Declares the rule to have no force or effect
The resolution’s operative sentence says the listed rule “shall have no force or effect.” Practically, that strips the rule of legal effect going forward, but it also raises implementation questions about actions already taken under the rule (for example, wage determinations issued while the rule was in effect) and whether agencies must rescind or revise subordinate materials tied to that methodology.
Operates under the Congressional Review Act and triggers the CRA bar
The resolution is submitted under chapter 8 of title 5 — the CRA. That matters beyond simple nullification: the CRA includes a statutory bar preventing agencies from issuing a rule in “substantially the same” form unless Congress authorizes it. That bar converts what might look like a one‑off regulatory change into a longer‑term constraint on DOL’s ability to adopt similar AEWR methodologies without new legislative direction.
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
- Employers who argued the DOL methodology raised wage obligations — they would avoid the new methodology’s wage floor and any compliance costs tied to it, improving short‑term labor cost predictability.
- State workforce agencies that prefer existing calculation methods — nullifying the rule reduces the need to retool data calculations, tables, and public notices tied to the new methodology.
- Agricultural employers with seasonal, non‑range operations (e.g., specialty crop growers, nurseries) that budgeted under prior AEWR rules — they gain relief from adapting payroll systems to a different wage formula.
- Members of Congress and oversight advocates prioritizing legislative control over technical rulemaking gain a precedent for using the CRA against DOL wage methodology rules.
Who Bears the Cost
- H‑2A workers and worker advocates — if the nullification results in lower AEWRs or delays in implementing higher wage floors, worker pay and protections could decline or remain uncertain.
- The Department of Labor (ETA) — nullification imposes administrative costs: rescinding guidance, reissuing materials, and adjusting enforcement practice, while also losing a regulatory tool for wage calculation.
- Organizations and legal counsel that relied on the published methodology for contracts, recruitments, and visas face compliance and contractual uncertainty; they must revisit job orders, employer attestations, and payroll assumptions.
- Labor advocacy groups and unions seeking higher wage floors — they lose a regulatory pathway to increase H‑2A wage protections and may need to pursue legislation or litigation instead.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between congressional control and regulatory expertise: Congress can use the CRA to overturn agency technical rulemaking to protect employers’ cost predictability or other policy preferences, but doing so can undercut an agency’s ability to set technically informed wage formulas that protect domestic workers — forcing a choice between immediate political oversight and sustained, expert‑driven adjustments to complex labor metrics.
Two technical but consequential uncertainties are front and center. First, CRA disapproval is blunt: it voids the rule going forward but leaves murky what happens to administrative acts taken under the rule while it was in effect — such as wage determinations, contracts, and certifications.
Agencies and courts will need to decide whether those downstream actions remain valid, must be reissued, or trigger restitution claims.
Second, the statutory prohibition on issuing a rule in “substantially the same” form creates a litigation‑prone standard. Courts have wrestled with what “substantially the same” means; if DOL later tries to achieve the same policy result by a different drafting approach, that effort will likely be litigated.
The CRA’s bar thus converts a regulatory tweak into a policy standoff between Congress and agency rulemaking authority. Finally, there are operational frictions: states, employers, and payroll systems may face short‑run costs and confusion as guidance shifts, and agencies may curtail future methodological experimentation to avoid another CRA reversal.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.