Recent years have seen growing scrutiny of the administrative state, particularly in relation to the practice of agency adjudication—a process by which disputes are resolved internally within administrative agencies rather than in a traditional court setting. At the heart of this constitutional questioning is the Supreme Court’s adoption of a “history-and-tradition” methodology to evaluate the legitimacy of such adjudicative processes. This approach underpins the ongoing case of Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, set to be deliberated on by the Court.
Central to the debate is whether agency adjudication aligns with Article III of the Constitution, which confers judicial power to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Certain issues traditionally handled by these courts have increasingly been resolved through administrative tribunals, such as those led by administrative law judges. Given the practical significance of these adjudications, which can levy substantial penalties on companies and individuals, the question arises: to what extent should non-Article III tribunals exercise judicial functions?
The Supreme Court’s reliance on historical context has been used to address constitutional matters beyond agency adjudication, as evidenced in rulings on social issues like in Dobbs and Bruen. History and tradition have also informed the scope of federal judicial power, particularly concerning the division of labor between Article III courts and administrative bodies. The Court’s 2024 decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy underscored this, delineating between “public rights” suitable for non-Article III adjudication, and “private rights” which necessitate Article III court intervention.
The Sun Valley Orchards case further complicates the history-and-tradition analysis. The case involves Sun Valley Orchards, which was penalized by the Department of Labor for allegedly breaching workplace conditions tied to an immigration program. While the government argues the case fits within historical public rights context related to immigration, Sun Valley contends it resembles a common-law contract dispute, hence falling under private rights requiring Article III adjudication. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Sun Valley, challenging the appropriateness of agency adjudication.
The broader concern arises from the multiplicity of traditions, complicating the Court’s methodology when a modern-day claim could fit multiple historical interpretations. Critics suggest either rejecting the history-and-tradition approach for its indeterminacy or refining it with supplemental constitutional analysis methods. Alternatively, courts might avoid this complexity by interpreting statutory authority without delving into constitutional adjudication; however, this could have varied repercussions.
Ultimately, the case of Sun Valley Orchards tests the Supreme Court’s ability to navigate multiple historical traditions, a challenge with implications that may extend beyond agency adjudication to broader constitutional interpretations.