Who Protects the Workers Who Pick the Fruit?
The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the Labor Department can use its own judges to fine farms that break the promises they made to guestworkers.
Who Protects the Workers Who Pick the Fruit?
By Grant Keller | Prodigal Breaking News | prodigalbreakingnews.com
November 10, 2026
On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, a case over a fine of more than $550,000 against a New Jersey farm for housing and pay violations involving H-2A guestworkers. The question is whether the Labor Department can impose such penalties through its own administrative judges, or whether the Constitution requires a federal court and possibly a jury. The answer will shape how the government enforces protections for some of the country's most vulnerable workers.
[CONFIRMED] The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards (No. 25-966). The Labor Department fined Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm, more than $550,000 after an administrative judge found violations of the housing and pay terms the farm agreed to when it hired workers through the H-2A visa program for seasonal agricultural labor. The farm has since gone out of business. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against the department, which appealed.
[CONFIRMED] The Court agreed to decide two questions. First, whether Article III of the Constitution bars the department from deciding these cases itself and collecting money penalties from employers. Second, whether the federal law governing H-2A, 8 U.S.C. §1188(g)(2), authorizes it to do so.
[CONFIRMED] Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris argued that the program is an immigration program and that enforcement of its conditions can be handled by the agency. Robert E. Johnson of the Institute for Justice argued for the farm that the dispute is about contract terms and belongs in federal court.
[CONFIRMED] From the official transcript:
- Chief Justice John Roberts told Harris, "you're still trying to get -- extend that broad authority beyond the justification for its application."
- Justice Clarence Thomas asked, "So then you can't really rely on immigration as a basis for this?" Harris answered, "No, we absolutely can rely on immigration as a basis for this."
- Justice Elena Kagan told Johnson, "you're trying to get us to think that the H-2A program is not an immigration program but it is an immigration program."
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Johnson, "And you're seriously suggesting that that could not be administratively adjudicated?"
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether fines "could be imposed on the alien for breaching those conditions without a jury trial."
[CONTEXT] The case follows SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), in which the Court held that the SEC could not impose certain civil penalties through in-house proceedings and that defendants were entitled to a jury. The administration defending the department's enforcement power here is the Trump administration. A decision is expected by the end of June.
[COMMENTARY] H-2A workers live in housing their employer controls and work on visas tied to that employer. When a farm breaks the deal, the question is not only whether it pays, but who has the power to make it pay, and how fast. If enforcement must move to federal court, protections on paper may take longer to reach the people they were written for.
Notice the pattern. Interrupt it.
— Grant Keller, Prodigal Breaking News
Sources: Supreme Court of the United States, docket No. 25-966 and official oral-argument transcript (Nov. 10, 2026); The Center Square via Yahoo News (Nov. 10, 2026); SCOTUSblog case file, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards; SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. (2024).
Image: AI-generated illustration, not a photograph.
Ask Prodigal about this story
Got a question about what you just read? Ask, and get an answer drawn from this story.
5 free questions left today. Answers come only from this story and can be imperfect.
Want unlimited conversations? Try Prodigal AI