Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Per Curiam 

nearly 60 in all—requested initial hearing en banc.  Second, 
OSHA asked the Court of Appeals to vacate the Fifth Cir-
cuit’s existing stay.  The Sixth Circuit denied the request
for initial hearing en banc by an evenly divided 8-to-8 vote.  
In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th 264 (2021).  Chief Judge Sut-
ton  dissented,  joined  by  seven  of  his  colleagues.    He  rea-
soned that the Secretary’s “broad assertions of administra-
tive  power  demand  unmistakable  legislative  support,” 
which he found lacking.  Id., at 268.  A three-judge panel
then dissolved the Fifth Circuit’s stay, holding that OSHA’s 
mandate was likely consistent with the agency’s statutory 
and constitutional authority.  See In re MCP No. 165, 2021 
WL 5989357, ___ F. 4th ___ (CA6 2021).  Judge Larsen dis-
sented. 

Various parties then filed applications in this Court re-
questing  that  we  stay  OSHA’s  emergency  standard.    We 
consolidated  two  of  those  applications—one  from  the  Na-
tional Federation of Independent Business, and one from a 
coalition of States—and heard expedited argument on Jan-
uary 7, 2022. 

The Sixth Circuit concluded that a stay of the rule was 

not justified.  We disagree. 

II 

A 

Applicants  are  likely  to  succeed  on  the  merits  of  their 
claim  that  the  Secretary  lacked  authority  to  impose  the 
mandate.  Administrative agencies are creatures of statute.
They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress 
has provided.  The Secretary has ordered 84 million Amer-
icans  to  either  obtain  a  COVID–19  vaccine  or  undergo
weekly  medical  testing  at  their  own  expense.    This  is  no 
“everyday exercise of federal power.”  In re MCP No. 165, 
20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting).  It is instead a 
significant  encroachment  into  the lives—and  health—of a