Supreme Court Divides on Whether Agencies Can Levy Civil Penalties
A ruling against the government would force federal regulators to rely on Congress or the courts to enforce existing laws.
By Tessa Cooper ·
The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided on Tuesday regarding the authority of federal agencies to impose monetary fines for statutory violations. The case, centered on Sun Valley Orchards, threatens to shift the burden of enforcement from administrative bodies to Article III courts. Such a change would alter how federal laws are policed across multiple sectors.
For decades, the H-2A program has allowed U.S. farmers to hire temporary migrant workers. The Department of Labor oversees this system to ensure workers receive promised wages and adequate housing and meals. In this dispute, the department fined Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey-based company, $500,000 for violations that included unsafe drinking water and housing conditions.
Sun Valley Orchards argues that the Department of Labor’s use of administrative proceedings to impose these fines is unconstitutional. The company contends that the process denies it a jury trial when appealing to federal court. The justices spent the hearing debating whether agencies can enforce penalties or if that power belongs exclusively to the judiciary.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the executive branch has expanded its power beyond its constitutional limits. Speaking to Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, Roberts said, "It seems to me you're just trying to leverage … the broad authority [of the executive branch] beyond the justification for its application." Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the skepticism, stating, "What you're proposing is really at war with clarity." Justice Samuel Alito described the proposed outcome as a "hodge-podge opinion."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back, noting that the current system prevents farm workers from undercutting domestic laborers. She observed that the challengers seemed to be fighting the reality of congressional intent. Justice Elena Kagan asked why the government did not always use courts for these disputes. Harris replied that such a shift would be catastrophic for enforcement resources.
Harris warned that limiting penalties to federal courts would disrupt major programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans. She described a ruling against the government as a "nuclear option" that would leave many statutory regimes on the "cutting-room floor." She urged the justices to decide if Congress needs to be involved immediately to fix the resulting gaps.
Robert Johnson, representing Sun Valley Orchards, argued that the statute authorizes penalties but does not specify where they should be adjudicated. He maintained that federal courts, not administrative agencies, should impose these fines. The justices have not yet indicated how they will rule on this structural question.
