Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

10  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. 

OSHA 
BREYER, J., dissenting 
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

facilitating vaccinations.  See §1910.1030(f ).  And it has in 
other contexts required medical examinations and face cov-
erings for employees.  See §§1910.120(q)(9)(i), 1910.134.  In 
line  with  those  prior  actions,  the  Standard  here  requires
employers to ensure testing and masking if they do not de-
mand vaccination.  Nothing about that measure is so out-
of-the-ordinary as to demand a judicially created exception 
from  Congress’s  command  that  OSHA  protect  employees 
from grave workplace harms. 

If  OSHA’s  Standard  is  far-reaching—applying  to  many 
millions of American workers—it no more than reflects the 
scope of the crisis.  The Standard responds to a workplace 
health emergency unprecedented in the agency’s history: an
infectious disease that has already killed hundreds of thou-
sands and sickened millions; that is most easily transmit-
ted  in  the  shared  indoor  spaces  that  are  the  hallmark  of 
American working life; and that spreads mostly without re-
gard to differences in occupation or industry.  Over the past
two years, COVID–19 has affected—indeed, transformed—
virtually every workforce and workplace in the Nation.  Em-
ployers and employees alike have recognized and responded 
to the special risks of transmission in work environments.
It is perverse, given these circumstances, to read the Act’s
grant of emergency powers in the way the majority does—
as constraining OSHA from addressing one of the gravest 
workplace hazards in the agency’s history.  The Standard 
protects untold numbers of employees from a danger espe-
cially prevalent in workplace conditions.  It lies at the core 
of OSHA’s authority.  It is part of what the agency was built 
for. 

IV 
Even if the merits were a close question—which they are
not—the Court would badly err by issuing this stay.  That 
is because a court may not issue a stay unless the balance 
of  harms  and  the  public  interest  support  the  action.    See