WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices examined whether the Department of Labor may impose civil penalties through administrative proceedings against employers participating in the H-2A program for temporary foreign agricultural workers.
The case, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, concerns allegations that employers did not provide workers the conditions promised before the workers were admitted to the United States. The federal government maintains that its authority over immigration and public benefits permits adjudication under Article I rather than requiring a federal court proceeding under Article III.
Article III assigns judicial power to the federal judiciary, while Article I provides the constitutional basis for executive-branch authority. Several justices pressed the government over whether civil penalties in this setting must instead be imposed by judges in federal court.
Chief Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the dispute was centered on workplace conditions rather than requirements for entry into the country. “This strikes me as significantly different,” Roberts said.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh also raised questions about the government’s Article III position. Kavanaugh referred to the court’s decision in Tull v. United States, a case from 40 years ago.
Justice Elena Kagan argued that the contested requirement was tied to admission under an immigration program. “But it is an immigration program,” Kagan said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed to other settings in which the court has permitted administrative resolution of civil-penalty matters. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the government about “the best way for you to lose.”
Sarah Harris warned that an expansive ruling against the government could affect administrative systems involving Medicare, government contracts and student loans. The court’s 1978 Bankruptcy Code precedent invalidated an earlier arrangement that assigned excessive adjudicative authority to bankruptcy judges who did not hold Article III status.
The arguments did not provide a clear indication of the outcome. A decision is anticipated late in the term and could be closely divided.
Category: Constitution
Tags: Supreme Court, Department of Labor, Immigration, Article III