Labor Department tells the Supreme Court that H-2A enforcement fits two public-rights categories
U.S. Department of LaborPetitioner, represented at oral argument by Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris
Arguing for the Labor Department, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris told the Supreme Court that H-2A enforcement fits two historical public-rights categories, immigration and government-granted privileges, so the department may adjudicate it without an Article III court.
Responding to
The Labor Department may adjudicate H-2A civil penalties and back-wage awards through its own administrative judges because the claims fall within the public-rights categories of immigration and government-granted privileges.
“When a federal statutory claim resembles common-law actions and remedies, this Court presumes private rights are at stake and that Article III adjudication is required. But, as Jarkesy reaffirmed, that presumption is overcome when the federal claim fits within historical categories of public rights. Here, two historical public rights categories overlap: immigration and government-granted privileges.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Supreme Court weighs whether the Labor Department can impose H-2A penalties through its own judges; Sun Valley Orchards says only a federal court can
After investigating Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm that employed H-2A seasonal workers in 2015, the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division found violations of program rules on kitchen access, paycheck deductions, the three-fourths employment guarantee, waivers, housing and transportation. A department administrative law judge and the Administrative Review Board ordered the farm to pay $211,800 in civil penalties and $344,945.80 in back wages. The farm, represented by the Institute for Justice, sued, arguing that the department lacked authority to impose money remedies and that its in-house adjudication violated Article III. A district court dismissed the suit. On July 29, 2025, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the claims involve private rights that must be tried in an Article III court. The Supreme Court granted the government's petition on April 27, 2026, limited to the Article III question and whether 8 U.S.C. 1188(g)(2) authorizes the department to adjudicate monetary remedies, and heard argument on November 10, 2026.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
Official transcript of the November 10, 2026 Supreme Court argument in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, No. 25-966. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris argued for the Labor Department and Robert E. Johnson of the Institute for Justice argued for the farm. The transcript is marked subject to final review.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Chief Justice John Roberts called the case, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, on the morning of November 10, 2026, and Harris opened the argument for the petitioners.
After the quotation
Harris said the government exercises its immigration power on the employer's behalf to grant workers visas and let them stay and work for that employer, who in exchange agrees to comply with the conditions in 8 U.S.C. 1188 and its regulations, and that imposing civil penalties and back wages does not change the answer.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The Labor Department argues that its H-2A penalty and back-wage claims against Sun Valley Orchards fall within public-rights categories that Congress may assign to the executive branch, and so defends deciding them before its own administrative judges.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseConstitutional Accountability Center says H-2A employers have no vested right to act without Congress's approval
Constitutional Accountability Center
“In creating the H-2A visa program, Congress conferred government benefits on private agricultural employers. As our amicus brief explains, the federal government's power in this sphere is so total that no employer has a vested right to act within it absent Congress's approval.”Read statement
Institute for Justice says the government shows no history placing the farm's case within the immigration exception
Institute for Justice
“This Court in Jarkesy made clear that the public rights exception is an atextual exception to Article III that must be applied carefully and with close attention to history. Yet the government here identifies no history extending the immigration adjudication tradition to the types of claims and remedies at issue here.”Read statement
New Civil Liberties Alliance says the Labor Department's in-house adjudication is unconstitutional
New Civil Liberties Alliance
“Relocating judicial power from Article III courts to executive departments and agencies, even with Congress's authorization, encounters at least five obstacles. Separately, each would suffice to hold DOL's administrative exercise of judicial power unconstitutional.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Labor Department tells the Supreme Court that H-2A enforcement fits two public-rights categories
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8629-arguing-for-the-labor-department-principal-deputy-solicitor
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Labor Department tells the Supreme Court that H-2A enforcement fits two public-rights categories". First published: 2026-11-15. Last updated: 2026-11-15. https://disputeindex.com/events/8629-arguing-for-the-labor-department-principal-deputy-solicitor