Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

11 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

Trump  v.  International  Refugee  Assistance  Project,  582 
U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (“Before
issuing a stay, it is ultimately necessary to balance the eq-
uities—to explore the relative harms” and “the interests of 
the  public  at  large”  (alterations  and  internal  quotation
marks omitted)); supra, at 4.  Here, they do not.  The lives 
and health of the Nation’s workers are at stake.  And the 
majority deprives the Government of a measure it needs to
keep them safe. 

Consider first the economic harms asserted in support of 
a stay.  The employers principally argue that the Standard 
will  disrupt  their  businesses  by  prompting  hundreds  of 
thousands of employees to leave their jobs.  But OSHA ex-
pressly  considered  that  claim,  and  found  it  exaggerated.
According to OSHA, employers that have implemented vac-
cine  mandates  have  found  that  far  fewer  employees  actu-
ally quit their jobs than threaten to do so.  See 86 Fed. Reg. 
61474–61475.  And of course, the Standard does not impose 
a  vaccine  mandate;  it  allows  employers  to  require  only
masking and testing instead.  See supra, at 3.  In addition, 
OSHA  noted  that  the  Standard  would  provide  employers 
with some countervailing economic benefits.  Many employ-
ees, the agency showed, would be more likely to stay at or 
apply to an employer complying with the Standard’s safety
precautions.  See 86 Fed. Reg. 61474.  And employers would
see far fewer work days lost from members of their work-
forces calling in sick.  See  id., at 61473–61474.  All those 
conclusions are reasonable, and entitled to deference. 

More fundamentally, the public interest here—the inter-
est  in  protecting  workers  from  disease  and  death—over-
whelms  the  employers’  alleged  costs.    As  we  have  said, 
OSHA estimated that in six months the emergency stand-
ard would save over 6,500 lives and prevent over 250,000 
hospitalizations.  See id., at 61408.  Tragically, those esti-
mates may prove too conservative.  Since OSHA issued the 
Standard,  the  number  of  daily  new  COVID–19  cases  has