The Founders’ creation of an independent judiciary was a central constitutional achievement. When the Supreme Court decides Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, that decision will shed light on how well the Constitution’s promise of an independent judiciary is being kept today.

In 2016, the Department of Labor (“the Department”) alleged that Sun Valley Orchards violated an employment agreement under the H‑2A immigrant visa program, which allows for temporary employment of foreign agricultural workers. The Department imposed civil penalties that Sun Valley challenged in a hearing before the Department’s administrative tribunal. The administrative tribunal, and then the Department’s Administrative Review Board, affirmed the violation. Sun Valley contested the fee assessments in district court, which dismissed Sun Valley’s claims. However, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that “Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court.” The Department sought certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted, and Cato has filed an amicus brief in support of Sun Valley.

Because a work contract is at issue here, and because work contracts are uncontroversially situated in common law, Cato filed an amicus brief arguing that only an Article III court can decide this case. Executive adjudication is improper here: This case is not about a public right, or one that can be traced to matters that could have been decided historically only by the legislative or executive branches. The Department contends otherwise. It argues that this case involves two public rights: immigration and conditions tied to government privileges.

Cato’s brief argues that the Department’s position is defective. More precisely. Cato’s brief argues that the position that the Department takes–extending the public rights exception to include all work contracts–would envelop all sorts of matters incidental to immigration and thereby bloat the exception almost beyond recognition. Furthermore, forcing employers like Sun Valley to forgo their Article III rights to participate in the H‑2A program is akin to the imposition of an unconstitutional condition. Such coercion is at odds with the structural protections granted to litigants by the Constitution. 

In short, Cato’s brief argues that a decent respect for both the rights of Americans and the inherent power and authority of federal courts requires that Sun Valley receive justice in an Article III court.