Constitutional Accountability Center says H-2A employers have no vested right to act without Congress's approval
Constitutional Accountability CenterAmicus supporting the Labor Department, in a statement by appellate counsel Joshua Blecher-Cohen
After the argument, Constitutional Accountability Center appellate counsel Joshua Blecher-Cohen said Congress conferred government benefits on agricultural employers through the H-2A program and that the federal government's power in the area leaves employers no vested right to act without its approval.
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.
“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.”
Official statement
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
Official statement
About this source
Constitutional Accountability Center release of November 10, 2026, after the Supreme Court argument in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, with reactions from appellate counsel Joshua Blecher-Cohen and senior appellate counsel Smita Ghosh. CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the Labor Department in June 2026.
Before the quotation
The Constitutional Accountability Center released reactions from two of its lawyers after the Supreme Court heard argument in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards on November 10, 2026.
After the quotation
Blecher-Cohen said the program therefore falls within the public-rights doctrine the Court reaffirmed in SEC v. Jarkesy, permitting the department's use of administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties. Senior appellate counsel Smita Ghosh added that Justice Barrett's questions compared the program to a government benefit such as public assistance or Medicaid.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed an amicus brief supporting the department, says the H-2A program falls within the public-rights doctrine and lets the Labor Department impose the penalties through its own judges.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseInstitute 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
Labor Department tells the Supreme Court that H-2A enforcement fits two public-rights categories
U.S. Department of Labor
“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.”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
- Constitutional Accountability Center says H-2A employers have no vested right to act without Congress's approval
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8631-after-the-argument-constitutional-accountability-center-appellate-counse
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Constitutional Accountability Center says H-2A employers have no vested right to act without Congress's approval". First published: 2026-11-15. Last updated: 2026-11-15. https://disputeindex.com/events/8631-after-the-argument-constitutional-accountability-center-appellate-counse