Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 69

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

This Court has repeatedly emphasized these unifying prin-
ciples through an unbroken series of cases over almost 200 
years. 

1 
Start at the beginning, with Murray’s Lessee in 1856.  In 
that  case,  the  Government  issued  a  warrant  to  compel  a
federal customs collector to produce public funds that the
Government determined the collector had unlawfully with-
held.  See 18 How., at 274–275.  The Government executed 
the warrant to seize and sell a plot of the collector’s land to
make up for the withheld funds.  See id., at 274.  In uphold-
ing  the  sale  of  the  seized  property,  this  Court  concluded 
that the Government’s in-house assessment and collection 
of taxes and penalties based on a federal official’s adjudica-
tion of the facts did not violate Article III.  The scheme was 

—————— 
any due process concerns that might arise from having executive officials 
deprive someone of their property without review in an Article III court.
See  Atlas  Roofing  Co.  v.  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Review 
Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, 455, n. 13 (1977) (“[T]hese cases do not present 
the  question  whether  Congress  may  commit  the  adjudication  of  public
rights and the imposition of fines for their violation to an administrative
agency  without  any  sort  of  intervention  by  a  court  at  any  stage  of  the 
proceedings”);  accord,  Oil  States,  584  U. S.,  at  344  (same);  Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg. 29 (Principal Deputy Solicitor General) (stating that “the Court has 
emphasized that judicial review of agency action may well be required”
and the Due Process Clause may “ha[ve] something to say” about that 
requirement).  The concurrence reproaches this dissent for declining to
address any potential deficiencies in this administrative scheme, as well
as failing to specify which forms of judicial review may be constitution-
ally required, see ante, at 22 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.), even though re-
spondents did not raise any due process challenge in this case.  Deciding 
whether this statutory scheme is procedurally deficient and so circum-
scribes judicial review that it violates due process would be inconsistent 
with the “settled principles of party presentation and adversarial test-
ing.”  Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286, 328 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concur-
ring in judgment) (citing Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U. S. 335, 354 
(2017) (GORSUCH, J., joined by THOMAS, J., concurring in part and con-
curring in judgment)).