It held a Labor Department interim final rule on seasonal farmworker pay unlawful.
It declined to vacate the rule “at this time.”
Law can hold both thoughts. A paycheck has to pick a number.
In Document 99, the court directed the Labor Department to publish replacement adverse effect wage rates. Until that happens, the challenged rates remain operative.
Employers were also warned that they may owe wage adjustments if the replacement rates are higher. The order does not establish those future rates, the size of any adjustment or when one might arrive. The court retained jurisdiction.
In plain language:
The government lost on the rule.
The existing numbers stayed on the payroll.
The Los Angeles Times headline says, “Trump administration’s wage cuts for seasonal farmworkers is unlawful, federal judge in California rules.” The Washington Post says, “Trump administration’s pay cuts for migrant farmworkers ruled illegal.”
Both headlines accurately state the court’s conclusion about the rule. Neither mentions that the court left the challenged rates in place.
Their articles do. The Times says the rule remains temporarily in effect. The Post says the judge did not cancel the lower rates and that possible back wages depend on the replacement rates. The UFW Foundation, a participant in the litigation, likewise says existing rates will remain until new rates are issued.
So this is not a case of a false headline followed by a true story. It is a case of one true fact receiving larger type than another true fact.
For now, the result is simple.
The rule is unlawful.
The rates are operative.
The remedy is unfinished.