Opinion ID: 613927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Congress granted the courts authority to decide enforcement issues under the MMWA

Text: Additionally, we need not defer to the [FTC]'s view of [remedies outside § 2310(a)], because Congress has expressly established the Judiciary and not the [FTC] as the adjudicator of private rights of action arising under the statute. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 649, 110 S.Ct. 1384, 108 L.Ed.2d 585 (1990). In Adams Fruit, the Court declined to accord Chevron deference to the Department of Labor in resolving statutory ambiguities surrounding the scope of the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act's (AWPA) judicially-enforceable remedy. Id. at 650, 110 S.Ct. 1384. Congress clearly envisioned, indeed expressly mandated, a role for the Department of Labor in administering the statute by requiring the Secretary to promulgate standards implementing [certain] AWPA[] . . . provisions. Id. However, Congress established an enforcement scheme independent of the Executive and provided aggrieved farm workers with direct recourse to federal court when their rights under the statute are violated. Id. at 650, 110 S.Ct. 1384. Thus, [a]lthough agency determinations within the scope of delegated authority are entitled to deference, it would be inappropriate to consult executive interpretations of [the statute] to resolve ambiguities surrounding the scope of AWPA's judicially enforceable remedy.  Id. (emphasis added). As with the Department of Labor in Adams Fruit, Congress clearly envisioned a role for the FTC in administering the statute by requiring the [Commission] to promulgate standards implementing [the IDSM] provisions. Id.; see also 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a). However, Congress established an enforcement scheme independent of the Executive and provided aggrieved [consumers] with direct recourse to [state or] federal court where their rights under the statute are violated. Adams Fruit, 494 U.S. at 650, 110 S.Ct. 1384; see also § 2310(d). [4] Because Congress has expressly established the Judiciary and not the [FTC] as the adjudicator of private rights of action arising under the statute, Adams Fruit, 494 U.S. at 649, 110 S.Ct. 1384, the judiciary owes no deference to the FTC's views on the legality of extra-judicial enforcement procedures such as binding arbitration.