Supreme Court Visa-Fine Argument Leaves DOJ Worried Over H-2A Program

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards over the department’s authority to assess penalties against H-2A employers. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris warned that a broad ruling against the government could imperil federal fines in programs far beyond farm labor. The Court has not decided the case.

The dispute concerns employer penalties under the H-2A program, not fines imposed on workers holding those visas. The argument itself did not change enforcement rules. The decision is expected before the Court’s term ends next summer.

Harris told the justices that a ruling barring administrative fines broadly could affect programs including Medicare and student loans. She called that possibility “kind of a nuclear option,” warning that “tons of civil programs” could be imperiled.

Her concern went beyond the farm’s case. Several Republican-appointed justices appeared doubtful that the employer requirements fit the public-rights exception, which can allow agencies to resolve some disputes without an initial hearing in federal court. Their questions did not decide the case.

The case stems from an assessment against a New Jersey farm

Sun Valley Orchards LLC, a New Jersey fruit and vegetable farm, hired nearly 100 foreign agricultural workers in 2015. The farm promised housing, access to groceries and cooking facilities, and a guaranteed number of work hours.

The Labor Department alleged that the farm broke those promises. It ordered the company to pay more than $500,000 in penalties and back wages. That combined assessment was against the employer, not the workers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned the administrative order. Sun Valley argued that the department should have brought its case in federal court, where an independent judge could hear it from the start. The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.

The dispute turns on whether these claims belong in court

The arguments center on the line between private rights and public rights. Disputes over private rights generally belong in regular courts. Agencies have often handled public-rights matters, including situations where the government confers a benefit.

Harris argued that admitting guest workers involves a public right. She said the forum for enforcing federal law is also at issue: “It’s the enforcement effect,” she said. “Can the federal government have enforcement of federal laws within the agency context or is it entirely at the mercy of the tail end of the court process?”

Robert Johnson, the farm’s lawyer, drew a distinction between admission and what follows. He argued that the government’s decision to admit guest workers may involve a public right, but an alleged breach of workplace promises after their arrival is a contract dispute. Sun Valley’s position is that monetary penalties require a court proceeding, even if the government can take other steps involving the program.

Harris cited the Supreme Court’s 1909 decision in Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, which allowed $100 administrative fines on shipping companies for each immigrant they brought to the country who had a contagious disease. Johnson called that precedent the high-water mark for administrative fines in immigration law.

The justices questioned both sides, with a ruling still ahead

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the farm’s requirements concerned entry into the country. He said they seemed “more like a condition of employment than a condition of entry,” adding that “The H-2A workers here have been in the country for some time.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the Court’s 1987 decision in Tull v. US. He said it made a “fairly definitive statement” about civil penalties being enforced in courts. He also noted that Sun Valley can challenge the department’s decision in court, although judges defer to agency findings.

Justice Elena Kagan stressed the program’s role in protecting domestic workers from being undercut by foreign labor. She described the alleged violations as more than contract issues: “This is essentially the government saying you have violated admissions pledges you’ve made to us.” Kagan also pointed to the Court’s 2024 ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which she said recognized immigration as an area where the public-rights exception can permit agency adjudication.

Justice Clarence Thomas said removing an employer from the program would be a clear way to regulate it. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the contract analogy fit, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor also cast doubt on that comparison, calling the dispute “the most unusual employment contract I’ve ever seen.”

The case is listed as DOL v. Sun Valley Orchards LLC, No. 25-966. The Court is expected to rule before its term ends next summer.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.