Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Per Curiam 

new hazards,” and (2) that the “emergency standard is nec-
essary to protect employees from such danger.”  Ibid.  Prior 
to the emergence of COVID–19, the Secretary had used this
power just nine times before (and never to issue a rule as 
broad as this one).  Of those nine emergency rules, six were
challenged in court, and only one of those was upheld in full.
See  BST  Holdings,  L.L.C.  v.  Occupational  Safety  and 
Health Admin., 17 F. 4th 604, 609 (CA5 2021). 

B 
On  September  9,  2021,  President  Biden  announced  “a
new plan to require more Americans to be vaccinated.”  Re-
marks on the COVID–19 Response and National Vaccina-
tion Efforts, 2021 Daily Comp. of Pres. Doc. 775, p. 2.  As 
part of that plan, the President said that the Department 
of Labor would issue an emergency rule requiring all em-
ployers with at least 100 employees “to ensure their work-
forces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least 
once a week.”  Ibid.  The purpose of the rule was to increase 
vaccination rates at “businesses all across America.”  Ibid. 
In tandem with other planned regulations, the administra-
tion’s goal was to impose “vaccine requirements” on “about 
100 million Americans, two-thirds of all workers.”  Id., at 3. 
After a 2-month delay, the Secretary of Labor issued the
promised emergency standard.  86 Fed. Reg. 61402 (2021). 
Consistent with President Biden’s announcement, the rule 
applies to all who work for employers with 100 or more em-
ployees.  There are narrow exemptions for employees who 
work  remotely  “100  percent  of  the  time”  or  who  “work
exclusively outdoors,” but those exemptions are largely il-
lusory.  Id., at 61460.  The Secretary has estimated, for ex-
ample,  that  only  nine  percent  of 
landscapers  and 
groundskeepers qualify as working exclusively outside.  Id., 
at 61461.  The regulation otherwise operates as a blunt in-
strument.  It  draws  no  distinctions  based  on  industry  or 
risk of exposure to COVID–19.  Thus, most lifeguards and