How the 2024 Supreme Court Ruling Changed OSHA’s Regulatory Power
5-Minute Guide on OSHA Compliance - 1 Year After the Supreme Court Ruling Limiting OSHA’s Authority
Intended Audience:
Business Owners, Facility Managers, Compliance Managers & Organizational Safety Personnel.
Why the 1984 Supreme Court Chevron Deference Case was a Windfall for Federal Regulatory Agencies:
This case involved a dispute between Chevron Oil and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on how that agency interpreted a part of the Clean Air Act.
The court ruled in a unanimous 6 to 0 decision against Chevron with the primary impact being that it took the power of interpreting federal regulations away from the judicial branch and gave it to federal agencies like EPA, EEOC, OSHA & FDA.
The ruling meant that it was easier for OSHA to defend its enforcement actions against employers who tried to appeal OSHS citations & orders.
OSHA also seized the opportunity to expand it’s definition of important enforcement actions it used such as Willful versus Serious violations, the Severe Violators Enforcement Program (SVEP), Feasible Controls, and Recognized Hazards, among others.
The ruling allowed OSHA to apply old & potentially obsolete regulations to comparatively modern developments like the COVID 19-Pandemic and robotics in the workplace.
What Has Happened to Change the 1984 Chevron Ruling.
On June 28th, 2024, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that substantially changed and reshaped how federal agencies can interpret & exercise their statutory authority.
The 6 to 2 vote decision overturned the Chevron Deference which gave federal agencies like OSHA the flexibility to interpret and implement vague or complex laws at their own discretion.
It is probably too early to determine if this recent decision is having a significant impact on how OSHA conducts its primary mission of enforcing the standards of the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970.
Why OSHA has Issued Vague & Ambiguous Regulations in the Past:
OSHA has publicly stated that it has to issue relatively broad safety & health standards in order to cover the large number of diverse industry groups with their unique safety issues that it is supposed to regulate.
Such vagueness & ambiguousness in the past has given OSHA considerable freedom in interpreting the existing regulations as it sees fit.
This allows OSHS greater ability to deny the appeals filed by employers wanting to contest OSHA citations.
OSHA believes that most of its regulations should be Performance Based where the safety outcome is emphasized versus Descriptive Based where the regulations details step-by-step procedures that employers must follow.
Supposedly, vaguely worded standards allow OSHA flexibility in dealing with new or emerging workplace hazards like COVID & workplace automation.
The OSHA agrees that it’s rule making process is overly complicated as it takes an average of 7 to 15-years to implement a new standard.
OSHA does points out that it’s rule making process is now subject to both congressional & judicial review.
The Vaguest of The Vague OSHA Standards:
Arguably, the General Duty Clause is OSHA’s most ambiguous standard as it states that the agency does not have to show that the employer violated a specific regulation, just that:
A hazard or work practice existed in the workplace.
The hazard was likely to cause death or serious injury.
That the hazard was recognizable or discoverable by management.
The hazard was either preventable, correctable or controllable.
The 2024 Supreme Court Ruling will probably limit OSHA’s ability to issue General Duty Clause citations because business entities should be able successfully argue that an OSHA citation that was issued to them was not the best interpretation of the applicable OSHA standards.
What the Court Decision Doesn’t Change About OSHA:
OSHA’s mandate from Congress to protect the safety & health of American workers.
The OSH Act obligation for employers to provide their employees with a safe workplace that is free of recognizable hazards.
OSHA’s authority to conduct workplace inspections, issue citations, levy penalties and require hazard abatement.
OSHA standards that have been previously upheld in court will remain in effect until successfully challenged at a later date.
OSHA will still have the authority to develop & implement new regulations as long as they comply with the provisions of the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision.
OSHA can still issue citations citing the General Duty Clause, just that they are more restricted on how the GDC is interpreted.
The Bottom Line:
The Chevron Deference Decision of 1984 is clearly dead and the federal court system is unquestionably & firmly back in charge of interpreting contested OSHA standards.
Such a pro-active judicial approach will almost certainly aid employers in their defense against what they consider as questionable, excessive or unwarranted OSHA citations.
While no complete challenges have been litigated in the federal court system as of yet, employers are increasingly using the 2024 decision as a basis for contesting OSHA citations in order to get lower penalties &/or citation reclassifications (Example; a Willful citation downgraded to Serious).
The 2024 decision has apparently had little impact on OSHA’s changing any of its inspection protocols as of mid-2025.
For Additional Information or questions on this Subject, Contact Centurion’s Loss Control Manager, Rob Brooks, at:
(606)434-0739
Disclaimer:
This publication is intended for general educational purposes only, and is not to be considered as business, financial or legal advice.
Readers should consult with appropriate professionals before making any decisions based on the content of this newsletter.
Some of the data &/or statistics referenced within were obtained using artificial intelligence.
Centurion Insurance Services and the writer make no guarantees or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the reliability, completeness or suitability of the information contained herein.
We will not be liable for any losses or damages arising from the use of the information provided.
