October Term 2021
No. 21A244

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Petitioner National Federation of Independent Business, et al. · Respondent Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration

From
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
How it got here
other

Did the Occupational Safety & Health Administration exceed its authority in promulgating a rule mandating that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine or else wear a mask and be subject to weekly testing?

Question before the Court
Pending
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion

The holding

The challengers to the OSHA rule requiring that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine or else wear a mask and be subject to weekly testing are likely to succeed on the merits. In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion, the Court granted the application to stay the OSHA rule. Congress created OSHA to set workplace safety standards. The challenged rule goes well beyond that and is effectively a broad public health measure. Even the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic do not justify such an expansion in the agency's authority. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined, reiterating that the States and Congress—not OSHA—have the authority to decide how to respond to the pandemic. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan filed a joint dissent, arguing that the pandemic directly affects the safety of workplaces and thus that OSHA has the authority to issue regulations to curb the effects of the pandemic in workplaces. The dissenters argue that by granting the stay, the Court acted outside of its competence and without legal basis, displacing the judgments of officials who have the responsibility and expertise to respond to workplace health emergencies.

Argued by

For the respondent
  • Elizabeth B. Prelogar On behalf of the Respondents
Also argued
  • Scott A. Keller On behalf of the Applicants in No. 21A244
  • Benjamin M. Flowers On behalf of the Applicants in No. 21A247

Case path

  1. Jan 7, 2022 argued
  2. Jan 13, 2022 decided