Thomas A. Berry and Dan Greenberg
The Founders’ creation of an independent judiciary was a central constitutional achievement. When the Supreme Court decides Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, that decision will shed light on how well the Constitution’s promise of an independent judiciary is being kept today.
In 2016, the Department of Labor alleged that Sun Valley Orchards had violated an employment agreement under the H‑2A immigrant visa program, which allows for temporary employment of foreign agricultural workers. The Department imposed civil penalties that Sun Valley challenged in a hearing before the Department’s administrative tribunal. The administrative tribunal, and then the Department’s Administrative Review Board, affirmed the violation. Sun Valley then filed a lawsuit challenging the fee assessments as unconstitutionally imposed. A district court dismissed Sun Valley’s claims, but the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that “Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court.” The Department sought review in the US Supreme Court, which was granted, and Cato filed an amicus brief in support of Sun Valley. Tomorrow, November 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case.
Our brief explains that, because a work contract is at issue here and work contracts are uncontroversially situated in common law, only an Article III court can decide this case. Executive adjudication is improper because this case is not about a so-called “public right,” nor is it one that can be traced to matters that could historically have been decided only by the legislative or executive branches.
The Department contends otherwise. It argues that this case involves two public rights: immigration and conditions tied to government privileges. But our brief digs into why the Department’s position is defective. Extending the public rights exception to include all work contracts would envelop all sorts of matters incidental to immigration and thereby bloat the exception almost beyond recognition. Furthermore, forcing employers like Sun Valley to forgo their Article III rights to participate in the H‑2A program is akin to imposing an unconstitutional condition. Such coercion is at odds with the structural protections granted to litigants by the Constitution.
In short, a decent respect for both the rights of Americans and the inherent power and authority of federal courts requires that Sun Valley receive justice in an Article III court. The Supreme Court should invalidate the administrative adjudication as unconstitutional.
