Court Opinion

ID: 9439184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 06:24:27.563392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:12.647551
License: Public Domain

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Because “the doctrine of stare decisis is of fundamental importance to the rule of law,” Welch v. Texas Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 494, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987), our disposition of this case should have begun with a citation to F.3d and there it should have ended.
Today’s majority opinion holds that under § 104(d)(1) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 814(d)(1), there may be “a ‘significant and substantial’ finding for violation only of a mandatory health or safety standard.” Maj. op. at 43. Secretary of Labor v. FMSHRC, 111 F.3d 913, 917 (D.C.Cir.1997), held the same:
As we read [§ 104(d)(1) ], the critical words are “such violation is of such nature.” A “significantly and substantially” finding may be made only after an authorized representative has found a “violation” of mine safety and health regulations.... By focusing the deci-sionmaker’s attention on “such violation” and its “nature,” Congress has plainly excluded consideration of surrounding conditions that do not violate health and safety standards.
This was not dictum. It was a necessary ground for the decision, leading us to reject the argument that in making an “S & S” finding, the Secretary could consider violations of something other than a mandatory health or safety standard. As such, Secretary of Labor v. FMSHRC should have been treated, by the Commission and by this court, as conclusive.