New Civil Liberties Alliance says the Labor Department's in-house adjudication is unconstitutional
New Civil Liberties AllianceAmicus supporting Sun Valley Orchards, in a brief joined by Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Buckeye Institute
In an amicus brief supporting Sun Valley Orchards, the New Civil Liberties Alliance argues that Congress cannot move judicial power from Article III courts to executive agencies and that each of five objections would make the Labor Department's administrative exercise of judicial power unconstitutional.
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.
“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.”
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
Amicus brief filed August 3, 2026 by the New Civil Liberties Alliance with Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Buckeye Institute, supporting Sun Valley Orchards in the Supreme Court.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The brief argues that the Constitution vests judicial power only in Article III courts, that Congress lacks judicial power and cannot delegate it, and that no executive officer can exercise it.
After the quotation
The brief asks the Court to discard the public-rights exception or at least to overrule Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and says the exception could never let the executive branch adjudicate cases like this one, where the government seeks punitive sanctions.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The New Civil Liberties Alliance argues that moving judicial power from Article III courts to the Labor Department faces at least five obstacles, each enough on its own to make the department's administrative penalties against the farm unconstitutional.
- 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
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
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
- New Civil Liberties Alliance says the Labor Department's in-house adjudication is unconstitutional
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8632-in-an-amicus-brief-supporting-sun-valley-orchards
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "New Civil Liberties Alliance says the Labor Department's in-house adjudication is unconstitutional". First published: 2026-11-15. Last updated: 2026-11-15. https://disputeindex.com/events/8632-in-an-amicus-brief-supporting-sun-valley-orchards