The Supreme Court on Monday morning agreed to decide whether the Department of Labor has the power to hold hearings to collect money from employers who violate the terms of the visa program for seasonal farm workers. The dispute arises from an investigation and proceeding conducted by the Department of Labor that led to an assessment of penalties and back wages of more than a half-million dollars against Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm that, according to investigators, put its workers up in squalid conditions, charged them for meals after promising them a kitchen, and had unlicensed drivers transport them to the fields.
The announcement came as part of a list of orders released on Monday from the justices’ private conference on Friday, April 24.
After an administrative law judge largely upheld the Department of Labor’s findings and fines, the farm went to federal court in New Jersey, where it challenged the DOL’s power to adjudicate the case and impose the penalties and back wages. U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez granted the DOL’s motion to dismiss the farm’s claims.
Sun Valley Orchards then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which reversed and ruled in the farm’s favor. In its view, the Constitution required the Department of Labor to proceed before a federal district court, rather than an administrative judge.
The Department of Labor came to the Supreme Court in February, asking the justices to weigh in. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called it a “straightforward case.” Temporary farm workers, he said, “account for a sixth of the United States’ agricultural workforce. The decision below deprives the government of an important tool for ensuring that employers comply with the conditions for employing those workers.”
In a brief, unsigned order on Monday, the court granted the Department of Labor’s petition for review. The case will likely be argued in the fall.
In December, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to use a new congressional map favorable to Republicans in 2026, pausing the ruling of a federal court in Texas which had found that the map unconstitutionally sorted voters based on race. In an order on the court’s interim docket, and over a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justices paused the lower court’s ruling.
In a one-sentence order on Monday morning, the court summarily (that is, without additional briefing or oral argument) reversed the district court’s decision, turning aside the challenge to the map. The court’s three Democratic appointees once again dissented, although they did not write a separate opinion.
After repeatedly putting off their consideration of the petition for review, the court on Monday also declined to take up the case of a Florida couple who contend that their child’s school had encouraged the child to transition to nonbinary at school over their objections. The school’s actions, the couple say, violated their fundamental rights as parents. The denial of review came one week after the justices turned down a similar petition for review from a Massachusetts couple.