Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

What  is  OSHA’s  reply? 

available for more than a year.  Over that span, Congress 
has  adopted  several  major  pieces  of  legislation  aimed  at 
combating COVID–19.  E.g., American Rescue Plan Act of 
2021, Pub. L. 117–2, 135 Stat. 4.  But Congress has chosen
not to afford OSHA—or any federal agency—the authority 
to issue a vaccine mandate.  Indeed, a majority of the Sen-
ate even voted to disapprove OSHA’s regulation.  See S.J. 
Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).  It seems, too, that 
the agency pursued its regulatory initiative only as a legis-
lative “ ‘work-around.’ ”  BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 
F. 4th 604, 612 (CA5 2021).  Far less consequential agency 
rules have run afoul of the major questions doctrine.  E.g., 
MCI  Telecommunications  Corp.  v.  American  Telephone  & 
Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 231 (1994) (eliminating rate-
filing requirement).  It is hard to see how this one does not. 
It  directs  us  to  29  U. S. C. 
§ 655(c)(1).  In that statutory subsection, Congress author-
ized  OSHA  to  issue  “emergency”  regulations  upon  deter-
mining that “employees are exposed to grave danger from
exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or
physically harmful” and “that such emergency standard[s]
[are] necessary to protect employees from such danger[s].” 
According to the agency, this provision supplies it with “al-
most  unlimited  discretion ”  to  mandate  new  nationwide 
rules in response to the pandemic so long as those rules are
“ reasonably  related ”  to  workplace  safety.    86  Fed.  Reg.
61402, 61405 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).     
The  Court  rightly  applies  the  major  questions  doctrine
and concludes that this lone statutory subsection does not
clearly authorize OSHA’s mandate.  See ante, at 5–6.  Sec-
tion 655(c)(1) was not adopted in response to the pandemic, 
but some 50 years ago at the time of OSHA’s creation.  Since 
then,  OSHA  has  relied  on  it  to  issue  only  comparatively 
modest rules addressing dangers uniquely prevalent inside 
the workplace, like asbestos and rare chemicals.  See In re: 
MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th 264, 276 (CA6 2021) (Sutton, C. J.,