According to Newsweek, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from his colleagues' decision not to hear a case challenging the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Thomas, supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the broad powers granted to OSHA under a 1970 federal law may violate the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal by Allstates Refractory Contractors, which challenged the extensive authority granted to OSHA by a 1970 federal law. The appeal claimed that the law violates Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which assigns legislative powers to Congress. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, expressed strong disagreement with this decision.
Thomas detailed his reasoning in a dissenting opinion, emphasizing the constitutional issues at stake. He argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act might represent the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency in the U.S. Code. According to Thomas, this delegation of legislative power to an agency is deeply concerning.
"If this far-reaching grant of authority does not impermissibly confer legislative power on an agency, it is hard to imagine what would," he stated in his dissent. Thomas compared the delegation to giving the Internal Revenue Service authority to impose any tax on a person as it deems appropriate, highlighting the potential for abuse.
Thomas has a history of dissenting from his fellow justices on various issues, underscoring his independent judicial philosophy. This recent dissent continues his pattern of challenging the court's majority decisions.
In recent weeks, Thomas has also been the sole dissenter in other significant cases. Last month, he dissented in a landmark gun rights case where the court upheld a federal gun control law with an 8-1 ruling. This week, he criticized his colleagues for making "unnecessary" comments after the court unanimously declined to address constitutional questions related to social media laws in Texas and Florida.
The court's conservative majority has recently overturned the 1984 Chevron decision, which directed judges to defer to government agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. This decision reduces federal regulatory power and aligns with Thomas's views on limiting the scope of administrative agencies.
The refusal to hear the OSHA case has significant implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies. Thomas and Gorsuch's dissent highlights a growing concern among some justices about the extent of agency authority. They argue that such broad delegations of power can undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
Thomas pointed out that at least five justices have already shown interest in reconsidering the court's approach to congressional delegations of legislative power. He suggested that the Allstates Refractory Contractors' petition was an excellent vehicle to address these concerns.
"The question whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important," Thomas wrote. He believes that addressing this issue is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the U.S. constitutional framework.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent from his colleagues' decision not to hear a case challenging OSHA's authority underscores his concerns about the broad powers granted to federal agencies. Supported by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Thomas argues that the 1970 federal law delegating extensive authority to OSHA may violate the U.S. Constitution. His dissent highlights a broader judicial trend of questioning the limits of agency power and the need for clear legislative guidelines.
This decision has significant implications for the balance of power between Congress and administrative agencies, reflecting ongoing debates about the constitutional separation of powers. Thomas's continued dissent on various issues demonstrates his commitment to challenging the court's majority decisions and advocating for a strict interpretation of constitutional principles.
