The government's motion (that Reason, to their credit, link in the first paragraph) is much more helpful on the actual case.

In this case, the answer is kinda both. Administrative law stuff like this can be heard without violating the seventh amendment under the two-part test cited in I.A (which was affirmed by a 2024 decision), and I.B points out that he implicitly consented by litigating in front of the ALJ for four years (and that implicit consent has been upheld as consent to avoid exactly this kind of gamesmanship).