Status as of November 10, 2026. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a dispute over the Department of Labor's authority to order monetary penalties and back wages in the H-2A farmworker program. The justices have not issued a merits ruling.
The Supreme Court is taking up a dispute that could change how the federal government enforces wage and working-condition protections for foreign farmworkers. At issue is whether the Department of Labor can order an agricultural employer to pay civil penalties and back wages through an administrative proceeding, or whether such monetary claims must be decided in a federal court.
Arguments in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, No. 25-966, are scheduled for November 10. The case concerns the H-2A visa program, which allows agricultural businesses to hire temporary foreign workers under federally regulated employment conditions. It does not concern a new H-2A visa eligibility rule, and the Court has not yet decided the dispute.
How a farm dispute reached the Supreme Court
Sun Valley Orchards, a farm in New Jersey, employed foreign H-2A workers and U.S. workers during its 2015 growing season. After investigating the operation, the Department of Labor alleged violations involving housing, meals, deductions and other employment obligations. The agency's administrative process resulted in approximately $211,800 in civil penalties and $344,946 in back wages, according to reporting by Reuters and the case materials. The farm contested the government's findings and its authority to decide the monetary claims administratively.
The litigation eventually reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In July 2025, that court ruled against the Department of Labor's use of its administrative adjudication process for these claims. The federal government sought Supreme Court review, which the justices granted on April 27, 2026.
The Court agreed to consider two questions. First, whether Article III of the Constitution prevents the Department of Labor from adjudicating monetary claims against employers accused of violating conditions owed to H-2A workers and U.S. workers in corresponding employment. Second, whether the H-2A statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1188(g)(2), authorizes the department to decide those claims through its own proceedings.
Why the government and the farm disagree
The Department of Labor argues that enforcement of the H-2A program involves public rights: Congress created a system allowing employers to recruit foreign agricultural labor under conditions set by the government, and it may authorize an agency to enforce those conditions. The department also points to the statute's wording, which authorizes the secretary to impose monetary penalties while separately providing for court proceedings to seek injunctions.
Sun Valley Orchards disputes both propositions. The farm contends that claims for monetary liability based on employment conditions belong in federal court rather than before the department's administrative judges. It also argues that Congress did not give the agency the authority it claims under the H-2A statute.
The dispute follows the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which limited the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek certain civil penalties through in-house adjudication. The parties disagree about whether that reasoning extends to the H-2A program. The Supreme Court's review is limited to the constitutional and statutory questions identified in its April order.
What is at stake for agricultural workers
The H-2A program links employers' ability to recruit temporary foreign farmworkers to obligations concerning wages and working conditions. The Department of Labor investigates alleged violations and may seek monetary remedies for affected employees. The dispute therefore concerns the forum and authority for enforcing those obligations, not whether employers have any obligations at all.
A ruling restricting administrative adjudication could require the department to pursue some monetary claims through federal courts instead. A ruling for the government could preserve its ability to resolve those claims through agency proceedings. Neither outcome is assured, and the Court could distinguish the constitutional question from the interpretation of the H-2A statute.
The case also affects U.S. agricultural workers employed in corresponding jobs, whose protections form part of the H-2A regulatory framework. It does not directly decide an individual worker's immigration status, extend a visa or authorize an employer to disregard wage requirements.
What happens next
The Supreme Court's official docket lists the case for oral argument on November 10, 2026. Oral argument allows the justices to question lawyers for the government and the farm; it is not a decision. A written opinion will determine the outcome after the Court completes its deliberations. Until then, the Third Circuit's judgment and the issues accepted for Supreme Court review define the litigation's procedural posture.
The broader question is how far federal agencies may go in ordering financial remedies without first taking an employer to court. In the H-2A program, the answer will shape the procedure used to enforce protections for both foreign and domestic farmworkers.
Sources: Supreme Court docket, No. 25-966; Supreme Court November 2026 hearing list; Cornell Legal Information Institute case analysis; Reuters, November 9, 2026; 8 U.S.C. § 1188.