Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

OSHA Is Unconstitutional

by March 1, 2024
March 1, 2024
OSHA Is Unconstitutional

Thomas A. Berry and Nathaniel Lawson

The Framers of the Constitution understood that the separation of powers is “essential to the preservation of liberty.” In line with this understanding, the Constitution was designed to ensure that no single branch of government could accumulate too much undivided power. The Constitution thus vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress, vests the executive power in the president, and vests the judicial power in the federal courts. Critical to this design is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which prohibits Congress from blurring these lines by delegating its legislative power to the executive branch.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the OSHA Act) violates the nondelegation doctrine by granting the executive branch virtually unlimited policymaking authority. The OSHA Act grants the secretary of labor the authority to impose any “occupational safety and health standard” so long as it is “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.” The secretary has delegated this power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Through this statutory language, the OSHA Act grants the executive branch regulatory authority over essentially every American business. The only restriction on this regulatory discretion is that OSHA must deem its regulation to be “reasonable,” but in practice that is no restriction at all. No other statute grants an agency such a broad authority with such complete discretion.

For these reasons, an Ohio business has challenged the OSHA Act as an unconstitutional violation of the nondelegation doctrine. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected that challenge, but the business has petitioned the US Supreme Court for review. And Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition.

Our brief recounts that for most of the last century, the Supreme Court has held that a delegation of authority complies with the nondelegation doctrine so long as it provides the executive branch with an “intelligible principle” to guide its discretion. But there is serious reason to doubt whether this lenient standard adequately protects against Congress delegating its legislative power. Before the New Deal era, the traditional standard in nondelegation cases was more strict, requiring Congress to decide major questions of policy and permitting the executive only to “fill up the details.”

But even under the lenient “intelligible principle” standard, the OSHA Act violates the nondelegation doctrine. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), the Supreme Court provided a two‐​part test to determine whether a statute violates the nondelegation doctrine: “(1) ‘whether the Congress has required any finding by the President in the exercise of the authority,’ and (2) ‘whether the Congress has set up a standard for the President’s action.’” 

The OSHA Act meets neither of these requirements. The Act’s “reasonably necessary or appropriate” language is even more vague than other provisions that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous nondelegation challenges. And unlike those upheld statutes, the OSHA Act provides no criteria binding OSHA’s discretion beyond that language.

Admittedly, the question whether a statute has crossed the line and unconstitutionally delegated legislative power can at times be difficult to discern. But as the Supreme Court itself has made clear, “the inherent difficulty of line‐​drawing is no excuse for not enforcing the Constitution.” The Court should take this case and get back in the business of meaningfully enforcing the nondelegation doctrine.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Spotting Tradable Pullbacks after Trend Reversing Surges
next post
Elon Musk sues ChatGPT-maker OpenAI over Microsoft links given Non-Profit Mission

You may also like

A Limited‐​Government Answer to Pregnancy and Childbirth?

May 3, 2023

Why the Chevron Victory Won’t End the Administrative...

July 18, 2024

Plan for Immigrant Spouses of US Citizens Faces...

June 18, 2024

Four GOP Presidential Candidates Say They’ll Close Education...

August 25, 2023

Friday Feature: Sweetwater Scholé

June 2, 2023

Cato’s new Globalization Quiz Tests Your Knowledge (and...

September 26, 2023

The Case for Conditioning Disaster Aid to California

January 24, 2025

Biden Is Sleepwalking Toward War in Ukraine and...

September 24, 2024

SCOTUS Upholds a Tax on Stock Ownership in...

June 20, 2024

A College Endowment Tax Is the Wrong Federal...

May 20, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Jeremy Hunt ‘made a mistake’ targeting non-doms, says shadow business secretary

      June 27, 2025
    • Small firms raise alarm over Companies House rule change forcing profit disclosure

      June 27, 2025
    • UK vehicle production slumps to lowest May level since 1949 as tariffs bite

      June 27, 2025
    • 420,000 more pensioners dragged into income tax net as threshold freeze bites

      June 27, 2025
    • SMEs cautiously optimistic despite trade fears and AI talent gap, says Vistage

      June 27, 2025
    • Alibaba launches £750,000 pitch competition for UK and European SMEs

      June 27, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,322)
    • Investing (2,074)
    • Politics (15,824)
    • Stocks (3,172)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved