(KENTUCKY) – A Kentucky federal court denied Triple R Farms’ bid to halt a DOL administrative hearing over H-2A violations, setting the stage for a contested in-house adjudication rather than jury trial in federal court.

Judge Robert E. Wier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled on June 16, 2026 that Triple R Farms, LLC had not shown it was entitled to a preliminary injunction in Triple R Farms, LLC v. United States Department of Labor et al., 5:26-CV-00087-REW-MAS.

The ruling leaves intact a September 16, 2026 administrative hearing before the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), where the farm will contest alleged violations tied to the H-2A nonimmigrant worker program. The company had asked the court to stop that process and require the government to pursue any monetary claims in federal court before a jury.

Triple R Farms, LLC operates in Berry, Kentucky and uses H-2A workers for seasonal labor. A 2020 audit by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) led the agency to seek $70,049.93 in civil penalties and back wages.

David and Debbie Ross, who run the farm, argue that the DOL’s administrative adjudication system violates Article III by removing the dispute from federal judges and violates the Seventh Amendment by denying a federal jury trial on money penalties. The farm is represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ).

DOL answered that the case falls within the public-rights doctrine because the penalties stem from conditions attached to an immigration benefit. In that view, executive branch adjudicators may decide the matter without a jury because the enforcement scheme is tied to the government’s authority over the admission of foreign workers.

The dispute reaches beyond one tobacco and corn farm. It tests whether DOL may keep using administrative adjudication to enforce visa program violations tied to labor protections for foreign agricultural workers.

Debbie Ross, identified in the litigation as a co-owner, attacked that structure earlier this year. “It’s sickening what the government can get away with. We’ve done nothing wrong and we want a jury of our peers to hear the evidence. All of it,” Debbie Ross said in a statement released through counsel in March/April 2026. “I don’t want this to ever, ever happen to another farmer or small business.”

Government lawyers tied their position to immigration power. Filings attributed to Keith E. Sonderling, then acting labor secretary, and Andrew B. Rogers, the WHD administrator, argued that enforcement of H-2A conditions concerns public rights because it is bound up with federal control over admitting noncitizen workers.

That argument tracks a larger fight over the administrative state. Employers challenging agency tribunals have pressed federal courts to treat civil penalty claims as the kind of private-right disputes that belong before Article III judges and, in many cases, juries.

Triple R Farms’ challenge also mirrors U.S. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the case the Supreme Court is set to hear in the fall of 2026 under No. 25-966. Both disputes ask whether DOL can pursue monetary sanctions for guest worker program violations inside the agency rather than in federal court.

Farm-side lawyers have framed the issue as an “Immigration Exception,” meaning the government can channel cases into agency forums simply because the employment relationship exists inside a visa system. If that theory holds, the logic may extend across immigration enforcement where penalties attach to federally regulated work authorization programs, including disputes that touch other employment-based categories such as H-1B.

DOL and worker advocates see a different risk. If courts strip the agency of in-house penalty authority, the government may lose a faster enforcement tool in cases involving wage, housing, transportation, and contract abuses against H-2A workers.

That tension falls hardest on two groups at once: agricultural employers facing large penalties and migrant workers whose legal status is often tied to one employer. Administrative adjudication may reduce costs and delay for the government; a federal court path may give employers broader procedural protections.

The government has repeatedly described the H-2A system as a legal pathway that serves employers and workers when used lawfully. On September 30, 2025, USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said, “When migrants choose legal pathways to employment in the United States, it is beneficial for American businesses, the public’s confidence in the rule of law, and the foreign workers themselves.”

Federal agencies also continue to adjust the regulatory structure around the program. A Federal Register notice published on October 2, 2025 addressed H-2A wage-rate methodology, showing how closely labor standards, pay requirements, and immigration benefits remain linked in the government’s treatment of agricultural guest worker programs.

Public information on the H-2A nonimmigrant worker program remains available through [USCIS](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers), while DOL maintains enforcement material through the [Wage and Hour Division](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/agriculture/h2a). Those records set the backdrop for the Triple R Farms, LLC dispute, but the Kentucky case now turns on constitutional limits, not just compliance rules.

The next fixed date is September 16, 2026, when Triple R Farms is scheduled to appear in the DOL hearing it tried to stop. Employers with exposure to H-2A or related visa program violations may want qualified counsel to assess how administrative adjudication, public-rights arguments, and the coming Supreme Court review in Sun Valley Orchards could affect pending matters.

This article involves legal and immigration matters. Readers should consult qualified counsel for advice on specific situations.