1 Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALLSTATES REFRACTORY CONTRACTORS, LLC v. JULIE A. SU, ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR,
ET AL

. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 23–819. Decided July 2, 2024 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. J USTICE G ORSUCH would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. J USTICE T HOMAS , dissenting from the denial of certiorari. Congress gave the Occupational Safety and Health Ad

ministration the power to e nact and enforce any workplacesafety standard that it deems “reasonably necessary or ap

propriate.” 29 U. S. C. §§652(8), 655(b). This petition asks us to consider whether that grant of authority is an uncon

stitutional delegation of legislative power. Because the standard this Court currently applies to determine whether Congress has impermissibly delegated legislative power “largely abdicates our duty to enforce that prohibition,” I would grant the petition. Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads , 575 U. S. 43, 77 (2015) (T HOMAS , J., concurring in judgment). The Constitution vests “[a] ll legislative Powers herein granted . . . in a Congress of the United States.” Art. I, §1. And, “[w]e have held that the Constitution categorically for

bids Congress to delegate its legislative power to any other body,” including to an administrative agency. Association of American Railroads , 575 U. S., at 77 (opinion of T HOMAS , J.); see also Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.
, 531 U. S. 457, 472 (2001). But, under our precedents, a del

egation of authority is constitutional so long as the relevant statute sets out an “ ‘intelligible principle’ ” to guide the agency’s exercise of authority. Id. , at 472. The Court of2 ALLSTATES REFRACTORY CONTRACTORS, LLC v. SU

T HOMAS , J., dissenting Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the delegation of au

thority to the Occupational Sa fety and Health Administra

tion under this “intelligible pr inciple” test, over Judge Nal

bandian’s dissent. 79 F. 4th 755, 760 (2023). I continue to adhere to my view that the intelligible prin

ciple test “does not adequately reinforce the Constitution’s allocation of legislative power.” Association of American Railroads , 575 U. S., at 77 (opinion of T HOMAS , J.); see also Gundy v. United States , 588 U. S. 128, 164 (2019) (G ORSUCH , J., dissenting) (explaining that our current in

telligible principle test “has no basis in the original mean

ing of the Constitution, in history, or even in [our prece

dents]”). This case exemplifies the problem. Congress purported to empower an admini strative agency to impose whatever workplace-safety st andards it deems “appropri

ate.” That power extends to virtually every business in the United States. See §654(a)(2); §652(5) (defining the regu

lated “employer[s]” as any “person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees”). The agency claims authority to regulate everything from a power lawnmower’s design, 29 CFR §1910.243(e) (2023), to the level of “contact between trainers and whales at SeaWorld,” SeaWorld of Florida, LLC v. Perez , 748 F. 3d 1202, 1220 (CADC 2014) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). The Occupational Safety and Health Act may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code. See C. Sunstein, Is OSHA Unconstitutional? 94 Va. L. Rev. 1407, 1448 (2008) (“No other federal regulatory statut e confers so much discretion on federal administrators, at least in any area with such broad scope”). If this far-reaching grant of authority does not impermissibly confer legislative power on an agency, it is hard to imagine what would. It would be no less objec

tionable if Congress gave the Internal Revenue Service au

thority to impose any tax on a particular person that it deems “appropriate,” and I do ubt any jurist would sustain3 Cite as: 603 U. S. ____ (2024)

T HOMAS , J., dissenting such a delegation. The question whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important. At least five Justices have already expressed an interest in re

considering this Court’s approach to Congress’s delegations of legislative power. See Paul v. United States , 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (statement of K AVANAUGH , J., respecting de

nial of certiorari) (slip op., at 2); Gundy , 588 U. S., at 149 (A LITO , J., concurring in judgment); id ., at 164 (G ORSUCH , J., joined by R OBERTS , C. J., and T HOMAS , J., dissenting). Because this petition is an excellent vehicle to do exactly that, I would grant review.