Jones Brothers, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor
898 F.3d 669
6th Cir.2018Background
- Tennessee DOT hired Jones Brothers to supply graded rock for highway repair; the company excavated a borrow pit and used drilling/blasting to extract rock near the roadway.
- MSHA inspector cited Jones Brothers for safety violations (failure to notify, inadequate safety equipment, insufficient training) and assessed civil penalties totaling $2,940.
- Jones Brothers contested jurisdiction and MSHA enforcement before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission; the ALJ and then the Commission upheld the citations.
- On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, Jones Brothers raised an Appointments Clause challenge (arguing the ALJ was an inferior officer improperly appointed by the Chief ALJ rather than the Commission) that it had not fully developed below.
- The Court considered (1) whether the Appointments Clause claim was forfeited for failure to exhaust before the Commission, (2) whether forfeiture should be excused as an extraordinary circumstance, and (3) whether Commission ALJs are inferior officers requiring constitutional appointment.
- The Sixth Circuit concluded the company’s forfeiture was excused, held Commission ALJs are inferior officers whose appointments violated the Appointments Clause, vacated the Commission’s decision, and remanded for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones Brothers forfeited its Appointments Clause challenge by not pressing it before the ALJ | Forfeiture should be excused; the company alerted the Commission and lacked clarity whether the Commission could remedy the constitutional claim | The company failed to raise the claim below and therefore forfeited it | Forfeiture occurred but the court excused it as an extraordinary circumstance given unsettled law on Commission competence to adjudicate the claim |
| Whether the Mine Act requires exhaustion of facial and as-applied constitutional claims before the Commission | As-applied and avoidance constitutional claims must be exhausted; facial challenges need not if the agency cannot remedy them | Government urged forfeiture of constitutional claims generally | Court: facial challenges are generally not subject to exhaustion; as-applied and constitutional-avoidance claims ordinarily must be raised and can be addressed by the Commission |
| Whether Commission ALJs are inferior officers under the Appointments Clause | ALJs are inferior officers because they perform continuing, significant duties (trial-like functions, issue initial decisions) | Government asserted ALJs are not officers or that no constitutional defect affects the proceeding | Court: ALJs are inferior officers and must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head; the Commission’s delegation to the Chief ALJ was unconstitutional |
| Remedy for unconstitutional ALJ appointment | Seek vacatur and a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ or after Commission ratification | Government pointed to subsequent Commission ratification of ALJ appointments as cure | Court vacated the Commission’s decision and remanded for fresh proceedings before a properly appointed ALJ; prior ALJ may not rehear the case even if ratified |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (administrative agencies lack authority to entertain facial constitutional invalidation of statutes)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (limitations on bringing constitutional challenges to administrative bodies that cannot grant relief)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (administrative exhaustion required when the agency can provide meaningful review and relief)
- Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (statutory review schemes can preclude district-court review of constitutional claims when adequate review exists in the statutory scheme)
- Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (SEC ALJs are inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (treatment of agency heads and structural Appointments Clause principles)
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) (consequences of waiver/consent in Appointments Clause challenges)
- Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 838 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (agencies should decide legal questions within their competence)