Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

tribunals.3 

The litigation in Atlas Roofing arose under the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), a federal 
regulatory  regime  created  to  promote  safe  working  condi-
tions.  Id., at 444–445.  The Act authorized the Secretary of 
Labor to promulgate safety regulations, and it empowered 
the  Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Review  Commission 
(OSHRC) to adjudicate alleged violations.  Id., at 445–446. 
If a party violated the regulations, the agency could impose 
civil penalties.  Id., at 446. 

Unlike the claims in Granfinanciera and this action, the 
OSH Act did not borrow its cause of action from the common 
law.  Rather,  it  simply  commanded  that  “[e]ach  employer 
. . . shall comply with occupational safety and health stand-
ards  promulgated  under  this  chapter.”    84  Stat.  1593,  29 
U. S. C.  §654(a)(2)  (1976  ed.).    These  standards  bring  no 
common law soil with them.  Cf. Hansen, 599 U. S., at 778. 
Rather  than  reiterate  common  law  terms  of  art,  they  in-
stead resembled a detailed building code.  For example, the
OSH Act regulations directed that a ground trench wall of
“Solid Rock, Shale, or Cemented Sand and Gravels” could 
be constructed at a 90 degree angle to the ground.  29 CFR 
§1926.652, Table P–1 (1976); see Atlas Roofing, 430 U. S., 
at  447  (discussing  Table  P–1).  But  a  wall  of  “Compacted
Angular Gravels” needed to be sloped at 63 degrees, and a 
wall  of  “Well  Rounded  Loose  Sand”  at  26  degrees. 
§1926.652, Table P–1.  The purpose of this regime was not 
to  enable  the  Federal  Government  to  bring  or  adjudicate 

—————— 

3 The dissent chides us for “leav[ing] open the possibility that Granfi-
nanciera might have overruled Atlas Roofing.”  Post, at 25, n. 8 (opinion 
of  SOTOMAYOR,  J.).  But  the  author  of  Atlas  Roofing  certainly  thought 
that Granfinanciera may have done so.  See Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., 
at 79 (White, J., dissenting) (“Perhaps . . . Atlas Roofing is no longer good 
law after today’s decision.”); see also id., at 71, n. 1 (Granfinanciera “can 
be read as overruling or severely limiting” Atlas Roofing).