OSHA的COVID-19疫苗接种和测试ETS被SCOTUS保留

2022年1月13日，星期四，美国最高法院 待 职业安全和健康管理局(OSHA) COVID-19疫苗接种和检测紧急临时标准(ETS). 法院将此案发回第六巡回上诉法院, 谁会考虑案件的是非曲直.

法院的裁决

摆在最高法院面前的问题是第六巡回法院的决定是否 解除逗留 允许ETS生效的法案应该被推翻. 在一个 由法院所定 但是，最高法院不同意第六巡回法院的判决，并暂缓执行. 法院首先讨论了ETS史无前例的性质. OSHA很少发布紧急临时标准, 和, 当它发生的时候, 联邦法院很少支持他们. 法院对ETS的广度感到敬畏. 虽然它确实包含豁免, 法院评论说，豁免“很大程度上是虚幻的”,，例如“专门从事户外工作”的工作. 除此之外，这项规定的作用就像一件钝器,法院写道, 并且“不会根据行业或暴露于COVID-19的风险进行区分. 因此，大多数救生员和运线员面临着与医务人员和肉类加工商相同的规定.”
 

至少部分原因是它的范围很广, 法院发现OSHA没有权力颁布ETS. 《威尼斯注册送38元》授权职业安全与健康管理局制定 工作场所 安全标准，而不是广泛的公共卫生措施.(原文重音.)排放交易体系的发布并不是“联邦权力的日常行使”,” but rather a “significant encroachment into the lives – 和 health – of a vast number of employees.”

Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many 工作场所s, it is not an 职业 hazard in most. COVID-19可以并且确实在家中传播, 在学校, 在体育赛事期间, 以及人们聚集的其他地方. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, 空气污染, 或者任何传染病. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs 和 face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly exp和 OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

The Court found that had OSHA been more deliberate 和 focused about the employers covered by the ETS, 它可能通过了司法审查. “Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or 工作场所, 有针对性的监管显然是允许的,” 和 OSHA 可以 “regulate researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus” or “regulate risks associated with working in particularly crowded or cramped environments.” But an 职业 安全 和 health st和ard that applies to every 工作场所 with 100 or more employees—without regard to the actual conditions in those 工作场所s—is too broad. “OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction—between 职业 risk 和 risk more generally—和 accordingly the m和ate takes on the character of a general public health measure, 而不是“职业安全或健康标准”.”

引用最近的一项决定, the Court wrote it expects Congress to “speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic 和 political significance.“毫无疑问，ETS就是在行使这种权力, 法院认为《威尼斯注册送38元》并未明确授权排放交易体系. (“Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes” is a common refrain in Supreme Court administrative rulemaking law.因为排放交易体系试图解决公共卫生措施，而不是设定公共卫生措施 职业 安全与健康标准，职业安全与健康管理局超出了职业安全与健康法案规定的权限. The Court granted the applicants’ requests for emergency stay 和 rem和ed the case to the Sixth Circuit for disposition of the challengers’ petitions for review.

戈萨奇大法官撰写了托马斯和阿利托大法官加入的一致意见. The concurrence discusses the major questions doctrine in more detail 和 concludes that Congress did not authorize OSHA to “regulate not just what happens inside the 工作场所 but induce individuals to undertake a medical procedure that affects their lives outside the 工作场所.“没有国会的明确批准，OSHA就没有实施ETS的权力.

布雷耶、索托马约尔和卡根法官持不同意见. The dissent chides the majority for constant reference to the ETS as a vaccine “m和ate” when it permitted a testing option 和 found that OSHA clearly had the authority to issue the ETS.

现在发生了什么?

The case has been rem和ed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to make a determination regarding whether OSHA has the authority to promulgate the ETS. 留在ETS, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs in the case are likely to be successful on the merits. 尽管这一判决对第六巡回法院没有约束力, 这可能会影响第六巡回法院的判决. 同样重要的是，ETS在发行6个月后即2022年5月5日到期. 取决于简报和辩论日程, 第六巡回法院不得在ETS到期前作出裁决.

OSHA有什么选择?

OSHA may impose COVID-19 requirements on employers using the so-called General Duty Clause provision in the OSH Act. 该条款要求雇主保持工作场所“没有公认的危险”.” The elements OSHA must prove to show a General Duty Clause violation make this a challenge. 关于COVID-19, OSHA must show that an actual COVID-19 hazard existed in the 工作场所—it is not enough to show that an employee 可以 在工作中感染COVID-19并将其传播给其他工人. OSHA must also show that the steps it requires employers to take to mitigate COVID-19—such as testing, 掩蔽和疫苗接种在技术和经济上都是可行的. For these reasons, OSHA has issued few General Duty Clause violations related to COVID-19.

OSHA将在2022年1月19日前接受对ETS的意见. Comments were solicited by OSHA because the agency is considering whether to issue a COVID-19 st和ard using its non-emergency regulatory authority. The Supreme Court majority noted that OSHA 可以 issue a narrower st和ard based upon heightened risk in certain types of 工作场所s, OSHA可以选择这样做.

这对雇主意味着什么?

The Supreme Court decision leaves states free to regulate employers with regard to COVID-19. 22个州 有自己的联邦批准的职业安全与健康计划吗. Federal OSHA has no jurisdiction over private employers in those states with approved plans. State OSHA plans may adopt 职业 安全 和 health st和ards as long as they are “at least as effective” as federal OSHA st和ards. 考虑到逗留时间, OSHA目前没有COVID-19标准, leaving state OSHA plans to adopt st和ards (or decline to do so) that are the same as the ETS or less protective. 例如, a state OSHA plan 可以 adopt a st和ard that requires vaccination or masking but does not include weekly COVID-19 testing. 一些州OSHA计划, 包括加州, 维吉尼亚州, 华盛顿, 和俄勒冈州, 已经采用了COVID-19标准. 其他 states OSHA plans like Iowa’s—a state that was a plaintiff in the challenge to the ETS—have expressly declined to do so.

The ETS also loses its preemptive effect in states without federally-approved state OSHA plans. 例如, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued an executive order prohibiting vaccine m和ates. 如果它是有效的, the ETS would preempt this type of state law because it frustrates the overall regulatory scheme OSHA tried to impose by foreclosing employers from adopting one of the options in the ETS—vaccine m和ates. Without the ETS, Texas 和 other states are free to regulate or legislate COVID-19 as they see fit.