Ohio Claim
The claim contended that a 1970 government regulation that gave OSHA the sweeping power to give work environment wellbeing guidelines disregards Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
X user OSHA_DOL
This gives lawmaking powers to Congress and no other part of the federal government.
Dissenting Justices
The appeal was denied by seven justices. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative, implied they would have heard it.
Flickr user LBJLibraryNow
Thomas dissented from the decision to deny taking up the case, but Gorsuch did not explain his reasoning.
Thomas’ Statement
“The question whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important,” Thomas stated.
National Archives and Records Administration
He continued to say: “At least five Justices have already expressed an interest in reconsidering this Court’s approach to Congress’s delegations of legislative power.”
“Excellent Vehicle”
The request is “an excellent vehicle to do exactly that,” Thomas claimed.
Flickr user U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Occupational Safety and Health Act “may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code,” Thomas said.
“No Less Objectionable”
“If this far-reaching grant of authority does not impermissibly confer legislative power on an agency, it is hard to imagine what would.”
National Archives
It would be “no less objectionable,” he contended if Congress “gave the Internal Revenue Service authority to impose any tax on a particular person that it deems ‘appropriate.'”
Past Objections
It is certainly not the only time that Thomas first has conflicted with his fellow judges.
Flickr user The White House
Last month, he was the only justice to contradict in a milestone gun rights case.
Gun Control Law
The judges decided 8-1 to maintain a government weapon control regulation planned to safeguard domestic violence victims.
Unsplash user STNGR LLC
After the court unanimously declined to settle constitutional issues raised by Texas and Florida’s social media laws this week, he also criticized his colleagues for remarks he deemed “unnecessary.”
Social Media Laws
In an agreeing assessment, Thomas said he concurred with the choice to return the cases to the lower courts.
Unsplash user Alexander Shatov
However, he clashed “with the court’s decision to opine on certain applications of those statutes.”
Federal Regulatory Power
His contradicting assessment on Tuesday comes after the court’s conservative majority on Friday caused a massive setback for government administrative power by toppling the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Flickr user U.S. Department of Agriculture
This had instructed judges to concede to government offices in deciphering regulations where the law is vague.
Impact of Decision
Chevron is a significant ruling that has been cited over 18,000 times over the decades according to SCOTUS Blog.
Flickr user Doc Searls
In Kagan’s dissent, she stated: “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.”
Content Regulation
The social media law regarding what content can be regulated prompted Thomas’ opinion that the commentary was “unnecessary.”
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
According to Thomas: “I cannot agree, however, with the court’s decision to opine on certain applications of those statutes. The court’s discussion is unnecessary to its holding.”
Thomas’ continued contradicting opinions to the rest of the Supreme Court could cause tension in future rulings.