U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared divided on Tuesday over whether administrative agencies or federal courts should adjudicate migrant farm worker disputes.
The high court heard arguments in U.S. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, a case challenging a more than $550,000 fee against a New Jersey farm for allegedly not providing required amenities to migrant farm workers as part of the H-2A visa program.
The H-2A visa program allows employers to recruit seasonal migrant farmworkers to address worker shortages. The businesses must provide adequate housing, fair pay, transportation and job protections to recruit workers. The requirements are designed to prevent depriving U.S. citizens of a job.
An administrative judge within the Labor Department assessed the fine over improper living conditions and unfair wages for the migrant workers against Sun Valley Orchards. The New Jersey farm later went out of business following the fine.
Sarah Harris, a principal Deputy Solicitor General, argued for the Labor Department. She said the dispute was primarily over the public rights issue of immigration, although private rights over housing and pay were involved in the case.
“That classic public rights dispute doesn’t convert to private rights just because the government requires those programs to be embedded,” Harris told justices on the court.
Several justices on the high court appeared to push back on Harris’ arguments. Justice Clarence Thomas said the case cannot solely rely on the immigration authority granted to the federal government.
“You can’t rely on immigration as a basis for this,” Thomas said. “[There are] plenty of civil penalties in the immigration process.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared cautious about allowing the executive branch to have broad, sweeping powers in its adjudication of farm worker programs.
“It seems to me you’re trying to extend broad authority beyond the justification of its application,” Roberts told Harris.
Harris said Congress authorized the administrative state to handle a wide range of adjudications because federal judges do not have the resources to handle the array of issues present. She pointed to the thousands of welfare claims adjudicated by executive branch agencies on a regular basis.
“If you’re outsourcing and transferring everything that has been in agencies to federal courts [there] is resource constraints,” Harris said.
Harris said Congress gave authority to the secretary of labor to “impose” fines against businesses that employ migrant workers.
Robert Johnson, a lawyer for Sun Valley Orchards, argued that the dispute rests on differences in a contract and should be adjudicated by a federal court.
“The government invokes the idea of immigration but does not issue a judgment imposing breaches of contract at a labor issue here,” Johnson told justices on the high court.
However, justices on the high court appeared to sharply disagree with Johnson. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said immigration was a central issue in the case regardless of the contractual disagreement.
“You’re trying to get us to say the H-2A program is not an immigration program, but it is an immigration program,” Kagan told Johnson. “It’s about the admission of foreign workers.”
Kagan said businesses that do not provide adequate pay, living conditions and other necessary resources to the government are committing visa fraud. She said the contracts are required to ensure fairness to American workers when migrants are recruited.
“We allowed these people to be brought in on a certain set of conditions,” Kagan said. “It’s a condition of admission, the condition has been violated.”
Sotomayor posed a hypothetical situation where a business broke its contract by placing a farmworker in a factory. She said, under Johnson’s proposal, the government executive branch would not be able to adjudicate it.
“You’re seriously suggesting that that could not be administratively adjudicated?”
Johnson pushed back. He said the specifics in this case do not pose that question.
“What you’re suggesting is a hypothetical where the statements would be made under false pretenses,” Johnson retorted. “Look at the nature of the allegation to see why that is not the case [here].”
Harris urged justices on the high court to issue a narrow ruling in the case. She cautioned against a ruling that would allow any issue regarding civil penalties to immediately be handled by the federal judiciary.
“It would be a big deal for the government to lose, a bigger deal to have no clarity on what public rights look like,” Harris said. “The government cannot live like that.”