## Facts

- OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on November 5, 2021 requiring employers with at least 100 employees to mandate COVID-19 vaccination or allow weekly testing and masking.
- The ETS covered approximately 84 million workers and preempted contrary state laws.
- Business groups and several States challenged the ETS as exceeding OSHA’s authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).
- The Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS nationwide; after consolidation, the Sixth Circuit dissolved that stay and permitted the ETS to take effect.
- Challengers filed emergency applications in the Supreme Court seeking a stay of enforcement; the Court heard argument on January 7, 2022.

## Issues

1. Whether OSHA likely exceeded its statutory authority under the OSH Act by issuing an ETS requiring vaccination or testing/masking for employees of large employers.
2. Whether the ETS constituted a measure of such economic and political significance that it required clear congressional authorization.
3. Whether the traditional factors for emergency relief supported staying the ETS pending further proceedings.

## Decision

- The Court (6–3, per curiam) granted the emergency applications and stayed enforcement of the ETS.
- The Court held the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits because the OSH Act did not clearly authorize OSHA to impose the vaccine-or-test requirement on most employees of large employers.
- The Court characterized the ETS as addressing a universal risk (COVID-19) in a manner resembling a broad public health measure rather than an occupational safety standard tied to workplace-specific hazards.
- The Court reasoned OSHA may regulate occupation-specific COVID-19 risks (e.g., work with the virus or especially crowded environments), but the ETS made no meaningful industry- or exposure-based distinctions.
- The Court concluded the stay factors favored relief, citing the rule’s sweeping scope and consequences for employers and employees.

## Legal Principles

- OSHA’s statutory authority is directed at occupational hazards and workplace safety; rules aimed at general risks faced inside and outside the workplace require clearer authorization.
- When an agency claims power of vast economic and political significance, courts expect Congress to speak clearly before recognizing that authority.
- An ETS is an extraordinary mechanism permitted only when employees face a “grave danger” from specified hazards and an emergency standard is “necessary” to protect them; breadth and lack of tailoring may bear on whether an ETS fits those statutory limits.
- In emergency stay proceedings, the Court considers likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest.

## Conclusion

The Court stayed OSHA’s large-employer COVID-19 vaccine-or-test ETS because challengers were likely to prove the OSH Act did not clearly authorize OSHA to impose a broadly applicable public-health mandate untethered to workplace-specific risks, and the equitable factors supported interim relief.


Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep't of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022)