Supreme Court seems split over federal agencies’ ability to fine : NPR

At the Supreme Court, the justices seemed divided on Tuesday in a case that could undermine the ability of many federal regulatory agencies to fine businesses that violate federal laws.

For decades, farmers have relied on a federal immigration program that allows them to temporarily employ migrant workers to pick crops.

In addition to wages, farm owners must provide basic necessities, such as housing, access to meals and water. The whole system is essentially policed by the Department of Labor to ensure that foreign workers don’t undercut domestic laborers.

In that role, the department fined Sun Valley Orchards, based in New Jersey, a half-million dollars for unsanitary conditions, including providing unsafe drinking water, housing people in 20-bunk rooms, broken sinks and other violations, including failure to pay promised wages.

Sun Valley is disputing the charges and contends that the Department of Labor imposing monetary fines based on its administrative proceedings is unconstitutional. Sun Valley also says the process denies them the right to a jury trial when and if they appeal to a federal court.

At the high court Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts strongly suggested that the Trump administration, and many administrations before it, have exceeded the power of the executive branch. In this case, potentially wading into the judicial branch’s territory.

Addressing Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who represented the Labor Department, Roberts said, “It seems to me you’re just trying to leverage … the broad authority [of the executive branch] beyond the justification for its application.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how disruptive it would be for the federal courts to enforce the law instead of the designated agency (in this case the Department of Labor).

Harris responded succinctly, “If the court were to say civil penalties always have to be in Article III courts, that’s kind of the nuclear option.”

Harris added that such a ruling would disrupt programs as diverse as Medicare, Medicaid, the federal student loan program and more.

That prompted this question from Justice Elena Kagan: “Why not just go to court always?” Harris quickly responded, “I think it would be catastrophic.” She went on to explain that a system like that would inevitably result in massive under-enforcement of the law, given limited resources.

Lawyer Robert Johnson represented Sun Valley Orchards. “To be sure,” he said, “the statute contemplates penalties, but it says nothing about where those penalties should be adjudicated.”

Johnson further contended that penalties should be imposed by the federal courts, not the administrative agencies that do most of that work under current law.

To that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson replied, “It seems like you’re just sort of fighting the reality of … what Congress was trying to do … in ensuring that we don’t have farm workers coming in and undercutting domestic workers.”

A more skeptical observation came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh: “What you’re proposing is really at war with clarity,” he said, adding, “I think that’s not great systematically going forward.”

Justice Samuel Alito pointedly added, “What you’re outlining is sort of a hodge-podge opinion, and maybe sometimes courts write that sort of thing,” to which Justice Kagan quickly chimed in with a chuckling crowd in the court, “Not ever us!”

In rebuttal, Deputy Solicitor General Harris was unusually candid. “It would be a big deal for the government to lose, but an even bigger deal would be to have a mess,” she said. She later added, “A lot of other statutory regimes also would be on the cutting-room floor.”

And if that’s the case, she said, the administration will have to go to Congress. Her voice rising, she added, “Please tell us now … if we need to get Legislative Affairs on it right now, because this will snowball.”