Conservative Justices Seem to Balk as Trump Admin Seeks Immigration Authority on Employers

Conservative justices seemed reluctant to grant the Trump administration sweeping authority to penalize employers importing immigrant workers.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could have broader implications for the Trump administration’s immigration-enforcement agenda. While the administration argues that it can oversee all employer-related cases involving immigration, justices questioned the scope of that authority.

“You can’t really rely on immigration as a basis for this,” Justice Clarence Thomas said of the Labor Department issuing fines for violations against immigrant workers without the involvement of Article III courts.

“No, we absolutely can rely on immigration as a basis for this,” Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general, replied. “There are plenty of civil penalties in the immigration context, both for the aliens themselves, for violating the conditions of admission to the United States.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch said the bulk of immigration statutes are related to admissions or deportations, not administrative actions. Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the administration seemed to argue for a deference to the executive branch that will extend to many future cases.

In the case of Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC., the department investigated and imposed penalties and back wages of more than $500,000 against the New Jersey-based Sun Valley Orchards after it concluded that farm workers had poor working conditions. The department found that the farm charged workers for meals and used unlicensed drivers to transport them, according to SCOTUSblog.

Justice Samuel Alito on Monday said the workers were not directly involved in the litigation and further questioned the significance of immigration to administrative action.

“This is not a contract action by the aliens,” Alito said. “They have no say in the conduct of this litigation. The government is not seeking, has not sought, just compensation for them, but civil penalties.”

The case itself stretches back to 2016, under the Obama administration. The farm owners, the Marino family, have denied the allegations, according to the Institute for Justice, a conservative-libertarian organization that is defending them.

Robert E. Johnson, senior attorney at IJ, argued that the Labor Department should not be able to take more than $500,000 from a family farm via an administrative judge that it employs. The farmers should have access to an Article III court, he said.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a brief, citing Founding-era figures former Chief Justice John Marshall and former President James Madison, that Congress may authorize executive branch agencies to impose fines for violations of immigration laws without courts.

“An employer accordingly has no vested right to import foreign labor; instead, it may bring aliens into the country only with the government’s permission. And when Congress grants a U.S. entity the privilege of bringing an alien into the United States, it may require the entity to accept executive adjudication of its compliance with the privilege’s terms and conditions,” Sauer’s brief said.

After an administrative law judge sided with the Labor Department, the farm sued in federal court over the department’s authority to impose the penalties. U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez again sided with the Labor Department.

However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Constitution requires executive branch agencies to proceed before a federal district court, rather than an administrative judge.

how much power the Trump admin has in immigration enforcement

Immigration hawks argue that certain agribusiness jobs are magnets for illegal immigration. However, some conservative and filed amicus briefs in the case arguing that

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org