An opinion today from a federal district court in New Jersey shows the stakes for the upcoming Supreme Court case of Jarkesy v. SEC.
This is Joe Marino. With his brother, he runs Sun Valley Orchards -- a multi-generational family farm in New Jersey. Or, he *used* to run it ... pic.twitter.com/xd1Fm27qvV
— Rob Johnson (@FreeRangeLawyer) July 27, 2023
The Case Behind the Clash
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, a dispute over who gets to impose penalties in the H-2A seasonal agricultural worker program. The Labor Department fined the New Jersey farm $550,000 in 2015 after an inspection found living conditions that violated program rules meant to protect American workers from being undercut by cheaper foreign labor. Sun Valley Orchards appealed, arguing that the penalties were tied to contract law and should be decided by Article III courts, not through the Labor Department’s internal adjudication process. It is a major constitutional question hiding behind a farm inspection and a very large bill.
Johnson Faces Questions From Both Sides
Rob Johnson, representing Sun Valley Orchards, argued that penalties involving immigration contracts should be handled by courts rather than the Executive Branch’s internal process. His position drew tough questions from both liberal and conservative justices. Justice Elena Kagan said Johnson appeared to be treating the H-2A program as something other than immigration, even though it concerns when the government allows foreign workers to enter while trying to protect domestic workers’ economic status. Justice Brett Kavanaugh then pressed Johnson on whether he believed all civil penalties belonged in Article III courts. Johnson agreed, but also acknowledged that immigration could be an exception. When Kavanaugh pointed out that Johnson had seemed to argue the opposite earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked him to give a simple yes-or-no answer. Johnson said yes, while adding that the Court should not go that far in this case. Kavanaugh told him he would need to explain that position, laughing as the exchange ended.
The Fight Over Oceanic
The Labor Department relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan. The department argued that the precedent allows the Executive Branch to fine corporations that violate immigration rules through internal adjudication. Johnson answered that Oceanic involved an admissions question at the border, including whether the government could fine boats importing migrants with diseases. In his view, Sun Valley Orchards was different because the workers were already in the country. Kagan questioned that distinction, noting that an employer had made certifications so the government would allow foreign workers to enter and was now accused of violating the conditions attached to that admission. Justice Sonia Sotomayor likewise said Oceanic remained relevant because the government has long used administrative procedures to punish employers who lied to bring people into the country.
The Constitutional Line
The justices are weighing whether H-2A penalties are mainly immigration sanctions or contract-like claims that must go before a federal court. Sun Valley Orchards wants the Court to draw a firm Article III boundary around the Labor Department’s authority. The department says the immigration setting and the Oceanic precedent already provide that authority. The argument showed no easy agreement across the ideological divide, with Johnson facing pointed questions from multiple justices. That may be bad news for anyone hoping a single constitutional phrase would settle the matter neatly. The Court must now decide how much power an agency can exercise when immigration rules, employer certifications, worker protections, and civil fines all arrive in the same legal package.
WE'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.