Supreme Court Questions DOL’s Use of In-House Tribunals in Sun Valley H-2A Case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument November 10 in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, a case challenging DOL’s authority to use its own administrative judges to impose back wages and civil penalties for alleged H-2A violations. The Court is reviewing a Third Circuit decision holding that the claims belong in federal court because they resemble traditional breach-of-contract disputes. 

As Western Growers previously reported, WG joined an agricultural coalition’s amicus brief supporting Sun Valley. The brief argues that Congress did not authorize DOL to create its own tribunal to resolve these disputes. 

At argument, the government maintained that H-2A enforcement falls within the “public rights” exception, which allows certain matters to be decided by agencies rather than federal courts. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the government’s broad immigration authority justified agency adjudication of employment disputes arising after workers have entered the country. He challenged the government’s effort to “extend that broad authority beyond the justification for its application.” 

In commentary following the argument, Cato Institute’s Thomas Berry predicted a ruling for the farm, pointing to skepticism about extending immigration precedents involving admission at the border to domestic employment disputes. Berry identified a central unresolved question: how the Court would draw the line between immigration matters agencies may decide and claims requiring a federal court. Other coverage described a divided Court, with justices also questioning the consequences for agency enforcement if the government loses. 

The decision could change where and how agricultural employers contest substantial H-2A monetary assessments.