Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC
No. 25-966 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power · argument November 10, 2026
Expected vote 5–4 for Department of Labor. Chance of a unanimous ruling 43%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
The Department of Labor is appealing a Third Circuit decision that prevents it from using its administrative law judges to order monetary remedies against Sun Valley Orchards for alleged violations of H-2A visa program requirements. Sun Valley Orchards, a farm that employs seasonal workers through the H-2A program, was ordered by the Department of Labor to pay over $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages for providing substandard housing and early termination of contracts. The Supreme Court will decide whether Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to assign the initial adjudication of monetary remedy proceedings to the Department of Labor, and whether the relevant statute authorizes such agency adjudication.
- Does Article III of the Constitution, which vests judicial power in federal courts, preclude an executive agency like the Department of Labor from adjudicating disputes that result in monetary remedies?
- Does 8 U.S.C. §1188(g)(2) specifically grant the Department of Labor the authority to conduct in-house trials for money damages in H-2A visa program violations?
- The Court will consider the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, particularly regarding the adjudication of private rights and the collection of monetary penalties.
- The interpretation of congressional intent in delegating adjudicatory power to administrative agencies will be central to the Court's decision.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
The H- 2 A visa program grants U.S. employers the privilege of "import[ing]" foreign aliens into the United States for temporary agricultural work under special visas. 8 U.S.C. 1188 (a)( 1 ). As a condition of granting petitions to import foreign workers, federal law requires an employer to agree to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements governing workers' living and working conditions. Congress has authorized the Secretary of Labor to impose monetary remedies to assure employer compliance with those "terms and conditions." 8 U.S.C. 1188 (g)( 2 ). The question presented is: Whether Article III of the Constitution precludes Congress from assigning to the Secretary of Labor the initial adjudication of proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who violate the terms and conditions of participating in the H- 2 A visa program.
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm, hires seasonal workers through the H-2A visa program. Under this program, the farm must provide certain benefits, such as safe housing and transportation, which it outlines in a “job order” that serves as a work contract. After an investigation into the 2015 growing season, the Department of Labor alleged that Sun Valley breached this contract by providing infested housing, failing to provide required kitchen access, and firing workers before their contracts ended. The Department of Labor used its own administrative law judges to order Sun Valley to pay over $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages. Sun Valley sued the government, arguing that Article III of the Constitution requires a federal court—rather than an executive agency—to decide cases involving monetary remedies for contract violations. The farm also contended that the specific federal law governing the H-2A program, 8 U.S.C. §1188(g)(2), does not grant the Department of Labor the power to conduct these types of in-house trials for money damages. After a federal district court dismissed Sun Valley’s lawsuit challenging the agency’s authority, the farm appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Department of Labor cannot adjudicate these private contractual disputes in an internal administrative forum.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes the separation of powers and the role of Article III courts, which could lead him to scrutinize the Department of Labor's adjudicatory authority. However, he has also shown a willingness to uphold agency authority when he perceives a clear congressional delegation. | 57% Department of Labor | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong proponent of originalism and a strict interpretation of the Constitution's separation of powers, making him likely to be skeptical of executive agencies exercising powers traditionally reserved for the judiciary. He has consistently expressed concerns about the expansion of administrative state power. | 57% Department of Labor | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally favors a robust interpretation of Article III and has often sided with challenges to the administrative state's adjudicatory powers, particularly when private rights are at stake. His jurisprudence suggests a preference for judicial oversight in disputes involving monetary penalties. | 57% Department of Labor | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often defers to agency expertise and congressional intent in establishing administrative schemes, especially when they aim to protect vulnerable workers. She is likely to consider the practical implications of limiting the Department of Labor's enforcement capabilities. | 57% Department of Labor | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan typically supports a pragmatic approach to administrative law, often deferring to agency interpretations and congressional delegations of authority. She is likely to uphold the Department of Labor's power if she finds a reasonable statutory basis and a legitimate governmental interest. | 63% Department of Labor | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a vocal critic of the administrative state and has consistently argued for a strong interpretation of Article III, often expressing concerns about agencies acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury. He is likely to be highly skeptical of the Department of Labor's adjudicatory role in this case. | 63% Department of Labor | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally supports the administrative state but has also expressed concerns about the scope of agency power, particularly when it encroaches on traditional judicial functions. He will likely look for clear congressional authorization and consider due process implications. | 57% Department of Labor | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often emphasizes textualism and originalism, which could lead her to carefully examine the statutory language for explicit authorization of the Department of Labor's adjudicatory power. Her views on the separation of powers suggest a cautious approach to agency overreach. | 57% Department of Labor | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often defers to congressional intent and agency expertise, particularly in areas involving worker protection and regulatory enforcement. She is likely to support the Department of Labor's authority if the statutory language can be reasonably interpreted to grant such power. | 63% Department of Labor | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.