|
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards (25-966) on April 24, 2026. The principal question presented is whether Department of Labor (DOL) in-house adjudicatory proceedings to impose monetary fines on agricultural employers who allegedly violate the terms and conditions of employment of H-2A visa holders (i.e., seasonal foreign farmworkers) are constitutional. In other words, under Article III of the Constitution, does such an employer have the right, in the first instance, to defend itself in a federal district court before an impartial judge and jury?
ALF has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm the Third Circuit’s holding that civil monetary penalty proceedings conducted by DOL’s in-house “court” cannot replace adjudication by an Article III federal district court. The amicus brief was authored by ALF Associate General Counsel Sarah Elizabeth Spencer.
Case Background
DOL’s Wage and Hour Division brought an in-house enforcement proceeding seeking monetary penalties against respondent Sun Valley Orchards. That New Jersey-based agricultural employer is alleged to have violated the terms of the H-2A visa program by maintaining unacceptable working and living conditions for its H-2A seasonal farmworkers. After a multi-day hearing conducted by a DOL administrative law judge (ALJ) and internal review by the DOL Administrative Review Board, DOL determined that Sun Valley Orchards is liable for approximately $600,000 in civil penalties and back wages.
Sun Valley Orchards then filed a district court suit under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenging DOL’s determination and arguing that the in-house proceedings violated Article III of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the suit, but the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the DOL adjudicatory proceeding was unconstitutional because, contrary to DOL’s position, this type of case involves common-law, employment-related, private rights that must be adjudicated in an Article III court. The court of appeals relied on SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), which held that when the SEC seeks to impose monetary penalties for alleged securities fraud, the respondent has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
DOL is challenging the Third Circuit’s opinion. Citing Jarkesy, DOL contends that its in-house administrative adjudication against Sun Valley Orchards was “permissible because adjudicating the terms and conditions of an immigration-benefits program involves public rights.” Sun Valley Orchards argues, however, that DOL seeks to impose penalties in connection with private, employment contract-related rights.
ALF's Amicus Brief
ALF’s brief argues that participation in the H-2A program does not constitute knowing and voluntary consent to binding adjudication before DOL’s in-house tribunal. The brief proposes a narrow rule: Program enrollment, without more, is not constitutional consent. ALF also explains that the penalties imposed by DOL in the Sun Valley Orchards case concern employment contract-related, domestic wage and working-condition obligations, including alleged violations involving U.S. workers, rather than the admission or exclusion of foreign workers.
The brief’s centerpiece applies FCC v. AT&T, 146 S. Ct. 1418 (2026), to distinguish permissible agency assessments from unconstitutional final judgments. Unlike the FCC order in AT&T, DOL’s order becomes final, creates an immediate debt, and triggers interest, surcharges, offsets, credit reporting, and federal collection without a de novo judicial determination. As a statutory fallback, ALF argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1188(g)(2), does not clearly authorize binding in-house adjudication, thus giving the Supreme Court a narrow route to affirm without adopting a broader constitutional rule.
| 
