Supreme Court Justices Split Over Whether Agencies Can Fine Businesses Without a Jury

The Supreme Court appeared divided on Tuesday in a case that could undermine the ability of many federal regulatory agencies to fine businesses that break federal law, NPR's Nina Totenberg reported.

The dispute begins with a federal program that lets farmers temporarily employ migrant workers to pick crops. Along with wages, farm owners must provide basics such as housing, meals and water. The Department of Labor polices the system to make sure foreign workers do not undercut domestic ones. The department fined Sun Valley Orchards, based in New Jersey, a half-million dollars for unsanitary conditions, including unsafe drinking water, 20-bunk rooms, broken sinks and failure to pay promised wages.

Sun Valley disputes the charges. It argues that the Labor Department imposing monetary fines through its own administrative proceedings is unconstitutional, and that the process denies it a jury trial if it later appeals to a federal court.

Chief Justice John Roberts strongly suggested that the executive branch, under this administration and many before it, has overreached into the judiciary's territory. Addressing Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who argued for the Labor Department, he said: "It seems to me you're just trying to leverage the broad authority of the executive branch beyond the justification for its application."

Harris warned of broad consequences. If the court held that civil penalties must always be imposed in federal courts, she said, "that's kind of the nuclear option." She told the justices it would disrupt programs as varied as Medicare, Medicaid and the federal student-loan program, and that a system requiring court action every time would be "catastrophic," producing massive under-enforcement because of limited resources.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed her with a simple question: "Why not just go to court always?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how disruptive it would be for federal courts to enforce the law in place of the designated agency.

Robert Johnson, the lawyer for Sun Valley, said the statute contemplates penalties but "says nothing about where those penalties should be adjudicated." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back, saying he seemed to be fighting the reality of what Congress was trying to do, which was to keep farm workers from undercutting domestic labor.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical of the position Johnson was taking, saying it was "really at war with clarity" and "not great systematically going forward." Justice Samuel Alito told Johnson that what he was outlining was "sort of a hodge-podge opinion," drawing Kagan's quip that courts never write such things, to laughter in the chamber.

In rebuttal, 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, adding that many other statutory regimes would be left "on the cutting-room floor." If the government loses, she said, the administration will have to go to Congress.

The justices are expected to rule before the term ends.