Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

4  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v.

OSHA 
GORSUCH, J., concurring 

dissenting from denial of initial hearing en banc).  As the 
agency itself explained to a federal court less than two years 
ago, the statute does “not authorize OSHA to issue sweep-
ing health standards” that affect workers’ lives outside the 
workplace.  Brief for Department of Labor, In re: AFL–CIO, 
No. 20–1158, pp. 3, 33 (CADC 2020).  Yet that is precisely 
what the agency seeks to do now—regulate  not just what 
happens inside the workplace but induce individuals to un-
dertake a medical procedure that affects their lives outside 
the workplace.  Historically, such matters have been regu-
lated at the state level by authorities who enjoy broader and
more general governmental powers.  Meanwhile, at the fed-
eral level, OSHA arguably is not even the agency most as-
sociated with public health regulation.  And in the rare in-
stances  when  Congress  has 
to  mandate 
vaccinations,  it  has  done  so  expressly.    E.g.,  8  U. S. C. 
§ 1182(a)(1)(A)(ii).  We have nothing like that here.

sought 

* 
Why  does  the  major  questions  doctrine  matter?    It  en-
sures  that  the  national  government’s  power  to  make  the 
laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Consti-
tution says it belongs—with the people’s elected represent-
atives.  If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily
lives  and  liberties  of  millions  of  Americans,  the  doctrine 
says, they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear 
grant of authority from Congress.   

In this respect, the major questions doctrine is closely re-
lated  to  what  is  sometimes  called  the  nondelegation  doc-
trine.  Indeed, for decades courts have cited the nondelega-
tion  doctrine  as  a  reason  to  apply  the  major  questions 
doctrine.  E.g., Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 645 (1980) (plurality 
opinion).  Both  are  designed  to  protect  the  separation  of 
powers and ensure that any new laws governing the lives of 
Americans  are  subject  to  the  robust  democratic  processes 
the Constitution demands.