On Tuesday, Nov. 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a closely watched dispute over the public rights doctrine, taking up Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC. The case centers on the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers and whether Labor Department administrative law judges may levy steep civil penalties against employers for alleged contract violations.
In August, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael Mukasey, along with law professor Gary Lawson and another signatory, filed an amicus brief supporting Sun Valley Orchards. They argue the company is entitled to have the matter decided in an Article III federal court and, if requested, by a Seventh Amendment civil jury.
The government’s briefs, filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, defend the Department of Labor’s use of administrative proceedings. Critics counter that while the federal government has broad authority to regulate immigration, it cannot make participation in the H-2A program contingent on surrendering constitutional protections, including access to an Article III forum and a jury trial in disputes that implicate private rights and property.
Public rights doctrine at the center
At issue is the scope of the public rights doctrine, which permits non-Article III adjudication for government-created benefits and privileges, such as Social Security, disability and welfare payments, immigration admissions, and certain tax matters. The government contends that because immigration is a privilege, disputes tied to the H-2A program can be resolved by administrative law judges without triggering Article III or Seventh Amendment protections.
Opponents point to Supreme Court precedent limiting that approach. They cite Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, where the court held that government may not use its regulatory powers to force unconstitutional conditions on permit applicants. By analogy, they argue, immigration authority cannot be used to sidestep constitutional guarantees for American employers facing punitive sanctions.
Revisiting Atlas Roofing and Jarkesy
The debate turns on how far agencies may go when imposing penalties. In 1977, Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA allowed administrative adjudication for new statutory obligations, a move critics say expanded the public rights doctrine to cover deprivations of property without a civil jury in matters analogous to traditional tort or contract claims.
More recently, in 2024’s SEC v. Jarkesy, the court held that defendants facing SEC civil penalties for securities fraud are entitled to a jury trial because such claims mirror classic cases at law as understood in 1787.
Applying Jarkesy, Sun Valley’s supporters argue that agency-imposed fines for alleged breaches of employment obligations are deprivations of property that require adjudication in an Article III court with a Seventh Amendment jury right available. They contend the public rights doctrine does not extend to enforcement actions that function like traditional private-rights disputes.
Potential implications for agency enforcement
If the court sides with Sun Valley, it could narrow agencies’ ability to route penalty cases through administrative tribunals when those cases resemble common-law claims. That outcome would limit the public rights doctrine to government-created privileges and reinforce jury-trial guarantees when the government seeks punitive fines against private parties.
Supporters of Sun Valley are urging the court to reject the Labor Department’s approach and to clarify that labeling a dispute as immigration-related does not strip Americans of Article III and Seventh Amendment protections. A decision reframing the public rights doctrine along the lines of Jarkesy could rein in the broader reading associated with Atlas Roofing and underscore due process safeguards in high-stakes enforcement actions.
The case adds to a growing docket of high-profile Supreme Court disputes involving administrative power, following cases such as Supreme Court January arguments set on juries, zoning. How the justices resolve the clash over the public rights doctrine and agency adjudication could shape the contours of federal enforcement for years to come.
