Supreme Court justices appeared divided Tuesday in a case that could undermine the ability of federal agencies to fine businesses that violate federal law, NPR reported.
The dispute involves Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm fined a half-million dollars by the Labor Department over a federal program that lets growers temporarily hire migrant workers. In addition to wages, farm owners must provide basics such as housing, meals and water; the department polices the system so foreign workers do not undercut domestic labor. It cited Sun Valley for unsanitary conditions, including unsafe drinking water, 20-bunk rooms, broken sinks, and a failure to pay promised wages. The farm disputes the charges and argues that letting the department impose monetary fines through administrative proceedings is unconstitutional and denies a jury trial if the company appeals to federal court.
Chief Justice John Roberts told Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who represented the Labor Department, that the government seemed to be trying "to leverage … the broad authority [of the executive branch] beyond the justification for its application." Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how disruptive it would be if federal courts, rather than the agency, had to enforce the law. Harris called a ruling that civil penalties must always be heard in Article III courts "kind of the nuclear option," saying it would disrupt programs as diverse as Medicare, Medicaid and federal student loans. When Justice Elena Kagan asked, "Why not just go to court always?" Harris replied, "I think it would be catastrophic," because limited court resources would lead to massive under-enforcement.
Robert Johnson, the farm's lawyer, said the statute "contemplates penalties, but it says nothing about where those penalties should be adjudicated," and argued that federal courts, not agencies, should impose them. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said he seemed to be "fighting the reality of … what Congress was trying to do … in ensuring that we don't have farm workers coming in and undercutting domestic workers." Justice Brett Kavanaugh was more skeptical of the farm's theory, saying it was "really at war with clarity" and "not great systematically going forward." Justice Samuel Alito called the farm's outline "sort of a hodge-podge opinion." In rebuttal, Harris was blunt: "It would be a big deal for the government to lose, but an even bigger deal would be to have a mess." If the court rules against the government, she said, "a lot of other statutory regimes also would be on the cutting-room floor," and the administration would have to go to Congress. "Please tell us now ... if we need to get Legislative Affairs on it right now, because this will snowball." The court has not ruled; the arguments only showed a split, not an outcome.