Justice Thomas’ Controversially Questions the Constitutional Legitimacy of Federal Agencies

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has sparked intense debate by urging his colleagues to reconsider the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Allstates Refractory Contractors, an Ohio-based firm, faced a $5,967 fine from OSHA after a worker was injured by a broken catwalk in 2019.

Spearheading the administration’s deregulation efforts in Don McGahn, a lawyer with Jones Day, the firm that previously worked as Republican former President Donald Trump’s White House counsel.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of examining OSHA’s broad authority, stating, “The question of whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important.”

Allstates Refractory Contractors used a “non-delegation doctrine,” a legal theory that is based on the idea that Congress cannot cede its legislative authority to other entities like OSHA.

Congress created OSHA to ensure that workers were operating in safe and healthy conditions by setting and enforcing standards. They also provide training, outreach, education, and compliance assistance.

This outcome, which business and conservative groups rejoiced in, will make it easier for judges to second-guess actions by US agencies like the National Park Service, the US Postal Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and many, many more.

Recently, the conservative majority ruled that enforcement actions seeking penalties for fraud that should be handled by the Securities and Exchange Commission instead of in federal courts violated the Constitution’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The public response to Thomas’ remarks was overwhelmingly negative. Social media platforms lit up with criticism, with many expressing alarm at the potential weakening of OSHA.

Actor Douglas Griffin, reflecting on his past as a machinist, criticized the potential undermining of OSHA. He stated on social media, “OSHA regs save countless lives every day. This is absolutely nuts. Thomas is detached from the realities of hard work.”

The case has significant political and legal implications. Allstates Refractory Contractors, supported by over 20 Republican Attorneys General, hoped the conservative-majority Supreme Court would rule in their favor.

OSHA has faced numerous legal challenges since its inception, surviving significant tests in 1978 and 2011.

In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Fourth Amendment prohibited inspectors of OSHA from conducting warrantless searches of business premises. The amendment protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.

In 1984, the Chevron ruling allowed federal agencies like OSHA to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress, which helped expand their regulatory power to protect workers.

Justice Thomas‘ comments coincided with OSHA’s proposal of new rules to protect workers from extreme heat, highlighting the urgency and stakes of the debate.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have upended the Chevron doctrine, a legal framework that directed courts to defer to the expertise of federal agencies like OSHA.

While the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the Allstates case, Justice Thomas’ dissent signals ongoing debates about the limits of federal regulatory power.

Justice Thomas’ dissent is seen by some as part of a broader conservative agenda to rein in federal regulatory agencies.

The controversy surrounding Justice Thomas’ call to reconsider OSHA’s authority shows the ongoing debate about the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies.

“I would say that this area of the law is the clearest one today where there is a 6-3 divide among the justices of the court,” attorney Misha Tseytlin, who has argued cases at the court, said to Reuters.

Carl Hoiland, CEO of Zanskar Geothermal & Minerals, says that the potential rollback of OSHA’s regulatory power has raised concerns among industry leaders.

The conservative majority has “continued to make limiting the power of administrative agencies one of its highest priorities,” said Nicole Saharsky, also a Supreme Court litigator.

Abner Greene, a Fordham University School of Law expert in regulatory law, said the court has taken “another step toward dismantling the federal regulatory state” by limiting the ability of Congress to use agencies to “develop federal policy over time and in response to complex circumstances.”

This ruling is just one of many recent decisions made by the Supreme Court to limit the federal government’s power to regulate everything from stock trading to pollution.