OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Stayed by SCOTUS

On Thursday, January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). The Court remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider the merits of the case.

The Court’s Decision

The issue before the Court was whether the Sixth Circuit Court’s decision to dissolve a stay and allow the ETS to go into effect should be overturned. In a per curiam decision, the Court disagreed with the Sixth Circuit and imposed a stay. The Court began by discussing the unprecedented nature of the ETS. OSHA rarely issued emergency temporary standards, and, when it did, federal courts seldom upheld them. The Court was awed by the breadth of the ETS. While it did contain exemptions, the Court commented that the exemptions were “largely illusory,” such as the one for “exclusively outdoor” work. The “regulation otherwise operates as a blunt instrument,” the Court wrote, and “draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID-19. Thus, most lifeguards and linemen face the same regulations as do medics and meatpackers.”
 

At least in part because of its broad scope, the Court found that OSHA did not have the authority to promulgate the ETS. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act “empowers OSHA to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.” (Emphasis in original.) The issuance of the ETS is not an “everyday exercise of federal power,，而是“严重侵犯了大量员工的生活和健康”.”

尽管COVID-19是发生在许多工作场所的风险，但在大多数情况下它不是职业危害. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. 这种普遍的风险与所有人每天都面临的犯罪危险没有什么不同, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. 允许职业安全与卫生管理局管理日常生活中的危害——仅仅因为大多数美国人都有工作，并且在上班时面临同样的风险——将在没有国会明确授权的情况下大大扩大职业安全与卫生管理局的监管权力.

法院发现，如果OSHA对ETS所涵盖的雇主更加审慎和关注的话, it might have survived judicial scrutiny. “由于员工工作或工作场所的特殊特点，病毒构成特殊危险的地方, targeted regulations are plainly permissible,OSHA可以“监管从事COVID-19病毒工作的研究人员”或“监管在特别拥挤或狭窄的环境中工作的相关风险”.“但是，一个适用于每个拥有100名或更多员工的工作场所的职业安全和健康标准——而不考虑这些工作场所的实际情况——太宽泛了. OSHA不分青红皂白的做法没有考虑到职业风险和更普遍的风险之间的关键区别，因此该命令具有一般公共卫生措施的特征, rather than an “occupational safety or health standard.”

Citing to a recent decision, 最高法院写道，它希望国会“在授权一个机构行使具有重大经济和政治意义的权力时，能够明确表态。.” The ETS is undisputedly an exercise of such power, and the Court held the OSH Act did not plainly authorize the ETS. (“国会不会把大象藏在老鼠洞里”是最高法院行政法规制定法中常见的一句话.) Because ETS attempts to address a public health measure, and not set an occupational safety and health standard, OSHA exceeded its authority under the OSH Act. 法院批准了申请人的紧急暂停审理请求，并将案件发回第六巡回法院，以处理挑战者的复审请求.

Justice Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion that justices Thomas and Alito joined. 会议更详细地讨论了主要问题原则，并得出结论，国会没有授权职业安全与卫生管理局“不仅管理工作场所内发生的事情，而且诱导个人接受影响工作场所外生活的医疗程序”.” Without express congressional approval, OSHA lacked the authority to implement the ETS.

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. 持不同意见的人指责多数人在允许测试选项并发现OSHA显然有权发布ETS时，却不断将ETS称为疫苗“强制令”.

What Happens Now?

该案件已被发回第六巡回上诉法院，以决定OSHA是否有权颁布ETS. In staying the ETS, 最高法院的多数法官认为，该案的原告很可能在案情上胜诉. Although that finding is not binding on the Sixth Circuit, it is likely to influence the Sixth Circuit’s decision. As important, the ETS expires six months after issuance—or on May 5, 2022. Depending on the briefing and argument schedule, the Sixth Circuit may not issue a decision before the ETS expires.

What Are OSHA’s Options?

OSHA可以使用职业安全与卫生法案中所谓的一般责任条款规定对雇主施加COVID-19要求. That provision requires employers to maintain a workplace “free from recognized hazards.“OSHA必须证明违反一般责任条款的要素使这成为一个挑战. With regard to COVID-19, OSHA必须证明工作场所存在实际的COVID-19危害-仅表明员工 could have had COVID-19 at work and transmitted it to other workers. OSHA还必须表明，它要求雇主采取哪些措施来缓解covid -19，例如测试, masking and vaccination—are technologically and economically feasible. 出于这些原因，OSHA发布的与COVID-19相关的一般责任条款违规行为很少.

OSHA is accepting comments on the ETS until January 19, 2022. OSHA征求意见是因为该机构正在考虑是否使用其非紧急监管权力发布COVID-19标准. 最高法院多数人指出，职业安全与卫生管理局可以根据某些类型工作场所的高风险发布更窄的标准, and OSHA could choose to do just that.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

最高法院的裁决让各州可以自由地对雇主进行COVID-19监管. Twenty-two states have their own federally-approved OSHA plans. 联邦职业安全与健康管理局对那些有批准计划的州的私人雇主没有管辖权. 州职业安全与健康计划可以采用职业安全与健康标准，只要它们“至少与联邦职业安全与健康标准一样有效”. Given the stay, OSHA does not currently have a COVID-19 standard in place, 让州OSHA计划采用与ETS相同或保护性较差的标准(或拒绝这样做). For example, 州OSHA计划可以采用要求接种疫苗或口罩的标准，但不包括每周的COVID-19检测. Some state OSHA plans, including California, Virginia, Washington, and Oregon, have already adopted COVID-19 standards. 其他州的OSHA计划，如爱荷华州——一个向ets发起挑战的原告——已经明确拒绝这样做.

ETS在没有联邦政府批准的州职业安全与健康管理局计划的州也失去了先发制人的效果. 例如，德克萨斯州州长格雷格·阿博特(Greg Abbott)发布了一项行政命令，禁止接种疫苗. If it were in effect, ETS将会先发制人，因为它挫败了OSHA试图通过阻止雇主采用ETS疫苗授权中的一种选择来实施的整体监管计划. 没有碳排放交易体系，德克萨斯州和其他州可以自由地对COVID-19进行他们认为合适的监管或立法.