Supreme Court Weighs Whether Labor Department Judges Can Impose H-2A Farm Penalties

The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 10, 2026, over whether Labor Department judges may impose monetary remedies against farms using the H-2A program. Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harris warned that restricting agency penalties could affect enforcement well beyond agriculture. No decision followed the arguments.

The case concerns employers accused of breaking employment conditions for foreign farmworkers and domestic workers in corresponding employment. The justices are reviewing the agency’s authority, not whether the visa program itself should end. The case remains undecided.

At a glance

• The Third Circuit ruled that Sun Valley Orchards was entitled to an Article III court.
• The farm brought nearly 100 foreign agricultural workers to New Jersey in 2015.
• A ruling for the farm could require the agency to bring penalty cases in federal court.

Harris warned that a court-only rule could reach beyond farms

Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general, argued for the government. She urged the justices to preserve agency authority to adjudicate monetary remedies, warning that a broad restriction could unsettle other federal enforcement programs.

“That’s kind of a nuclear option,” she said, warning that “tons of civil programs” could be imperiled.

Her warning extended to administrative fines in programs involving Medicare and student loans. She also told the justices, “It would be a big deal for the government to lose but an even bigger deal would be to have a mess,” Harris said. The government’s concern is broader than the farm’s case, but the Court’s review is limited to the authority at issue there.

The case asks who can decide penalties over farm employment terms

The dispute, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards LLC, No. 25-966, began with a New Jersey fruit and vegetable farm. Sun Valley brought in nearly 100 foreign agricultural workers in 2015. The department alleged the farm failed to provide promised housing, grocery access, cooking facilities and a guaranteed number of work hours; claims about the case also include that workers were fired before their contracts were up.

The department pursued the alleged violations through its administrative tribunal and review board. Both upheld the violation. The Third Circuit then ruled that the farm was entitled to have its case heard by a judge under Article III of the Constitution. The disputed monetary amounts are not settled by the Supreme Court case.

The justices agreed on April 27, 2026, to consider two questions. One asks whether Article III bars the department from deciding cases seeking monetary remedies from employers accused of violating employment terms for H-2A workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment. The other asks whether 8 U.S.C. §1188(g)(2) gives the department that authority.

The dispute turns on whether the obligations are public or private rights

The government’s argument treats the admission of guest workers as a public right, a category in which Congress may assign some disputes to executive agencies. Harris argued that the employment requirements are tied to the government’s decision to admit workers.

Sun Valley’s lawyer, Robert Johnson, drew a line between admission and what happens after workers arrive. He argued that the conditions then resemble contract terms, making monetary penalties a matter for a court. Under that position, the department could still exclude the farm from the program or deport workers, but could not impose punitive fines on its own.

The dispute follows the Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which recognized a jury-trial right for companies facing civil penalties for securities fraud. The justices must decide how that ruling and the public-rights exception apply here. The issue is who may decide the monetary claims.

The justices tested how far agency enforcement can extend

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether civil penalties can be imposed outside court, pointing to the Court’s 1987 decision in Tull v. US. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also questioned whether the farm requirements concern entry into the country or employment after arrival. “The H-2A workers here have been in the country for some time,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan stressed immigration enforcement and argued that the program’s conditions protect domestic workers from being undercut. She described alleged violations as “visa fraud” and said the government was enforcing admissions promises. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that removing an employer from the program could itself regulate participation.

Justice Samuel Alito challenged the comparison between the farm’s obligations and a conventional contract. He said workers had no say over the terms. The justices’ questions showed competing views, not a ruling.

If the government loses, the department could have to sue agricultural employers in federal court to recover monetary remedies. The ruling’s reach would depend on what the Court decides. Court proceedings may also take longer than agency enforcement, affecting how quickly workers and employers resolve claims.

The docket will carry the next order

The Court is expected to decide the case before its term ends next summer. Its docket is the place to check for a decision and any later orders. No ruling has yet resolved whether the agency may decide these monetary claims.