The United States Capitol is visible behind U.S. Department of Labor signage in Washington, DC, August 2025.
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
At the Supreme Court, the justices appeared divided Tuesday in a case that could undermine the ability of many federal regulators to fine companies that violate federal laws.
For decades, farmers have relied on a federal immigration program that allows them to temporarily employ migrant workers to harvest their crops.
In addition to wages, farm owners must provide basic necessities, such as housing, access to meals and water. The whole system is basically controlled by the Ministry of Labor to ensure that foreign workers do not underestimate domestic workers.
As such, the department fined New Jersey-based Sun Valley Orchards half a million dollars for unsanitary conditions, including providing unsafe drinking water, housing people in rooms with 20 bunk beds, broken sinks, and other violations, including failure to pay promised wages.
Sun Valley disputes the charges and argues that the Department of Labor imposing fines based on its administrative procedures is unconstitutional. Sun Valley also claims the process deprives them of the right to a jury trial when they appeal in federal court.
Before the high court on Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts strongly suggested that the Trump administration, and many administrations before it, had overstepped the power of the executive branch. In this case, it is potentially an intrusion into the territory of the judiciary.
Speaking to Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who represented the Department of Labor, Roberts said: “It seems to me that you are just trying to exploit…the broad authority (of the executive branch) beyond the justification for its application.” »
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how disruptive it would be if the federal courts applied the law instead of the designated agency (in this case the Department of Labor).
Harris responded succinctly: “If the court were to say that civil penalties must always be imposed on Article III courts, that’s sort of the nuclear option.” »
Harris added that such a move would disrupt programs as diverse as Medicare, Medicaid, the federal student loan program and more.
That prompted this question from Justice Elena Kagan: “Why not always go to court?” Harris quickly responded: “I think it would be catastrophic. » She then explained that a system like that would inevitably lead to massive enforcement, given limited resources.
Attorney Robert Johnson represented Sun Valley Orchards. “Of course,” he said, “the law provides for sanctions, but it says nothing about where these sanctions should be imposed.”
Johnson further argued that sanctions should be imposed by federal courts and not by the administrative agencies that do most of this work under current law.
To this, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded: “It seems like you’re just fighting the reality of…what Congress was trying to do…in making sure that we don’t have farmworkers coming in and undercutting domestic workers.” »
A more skeptical observation came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “What you’re proposing is really at war with clarity,” he said, adding: “I think it’s not a consistently good thing moving forward.” »
Justice Samuel Alito pointedly added, “What you’re stating is kind of a mixed bag of opinion, and maybe sometimes courts write that kind of thing,” to which Justice Kagan quickly responded to a laughing crowd in the courtroom: “Not ever us!”
In his rebuttal, Deputy Solicitor General Harris was exceptionally frank. “It would be a big deal for the government to lose, but it would be even bigger if there was a disaster,” she said. She later added: “Many other statutory schemes are also said to be in the pipeline. »
And if that’s the case, she said, the administration will have to go to Congress. Her voice rising, she added: “Please tell us now…if we should take Legislative Affairs on this now, because it will snowball.”
Gn headline
