Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

others, any one of whom could represent a source of expo-
sure to” the virus.  Id., at 61408.  The agency backed up its 
conclusions with hundreds of reports of workplace COVID–
19  outbreaks—not  just  in  cheek-by-jowl  settings  like  fac-
tory assembly lines, but in retail stores, restaurants, medi-
cal facilities, construction areas, and standard offices.  Id., 
at  61412–61416.  But  still,  OSHA  took  care  to  tailor  the 
Standard.  Where it could exempt work settings without ex-
posing  employees  to  grave  danger,  it  did  so.    See  id.,  at 
61419–61420; supra, at 3.  In sum, the agency did just what 
the Act told it to: It protected employees from a grave dan-
ger posed by a new virus as and where needed, and went no 
further.  The  majority,  in  overturning  that  action,  substi-
tutes judicial diktat for reasoned policymaking. 

The result of its ruling is squarely at odds with the stat-
utory scheme.  As shown earlier, the Act’s explicit terms au-
thorize  the  Standard.  See  supra,  at  4–6.    Once  again, 
OSHA  must  issue  an  emergency  standard  in  response  to
new  hazards  in  the  workplace  that  expose  employees  to 
“grave danger.”  §655(c)(1); see supra, at 2–4.  The entire 
point of that provision is to enable OSHA to deal with emer-
gencies—to put into effect the new measures needed to cope
with new workplace conditions.  The enacting Congress of 
course did not tell the agency to issue this Standard in re-
sponse  to  this  COVID–19  pandemic—because  that  Con-
gress could not predict the future.  But that Congress did
indeed  want  OSHA  to  have  the  tools  needed  to  confront 
emerging  dangers  (including  contagious  diseases)  in  the
workplace.  We  know  that,  first  and  foremost,  from  the 
breadth of the authority Congress granted to OSHA.  And 
we know that because of how OSHA has used that authority 
from the statute’s beginnings—in ways not dissimilar to the
action here.  OSHA has often issued rules applying to all or 
nearly all workplaces in the Nation, affecting at once many
tens of millions of employees.  See, e.g., 29 CFR §1910.141.
It has previously regulated infectious disease, including by