Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFederal PreemptionOccupational Safety and HealthSupremacy ClausepreemptionOSH ActOSHAstate licensing

Facts

Illinois enacted two licensing acts covering hazardous waste crane and hoisting equipment operators and hazardous waste laborers. The acts required applicants to complete at least 40 hours of Illinois-approved training, pass a written examination, complete annual refresher training, and, for crane operators, document 4,000 hours of relevant equipment operation. OSHA had already promulgated hazardous-waste worker training standards under the OSH Act and SARA, including training, field-experience, refresher-training, and certification requirements for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations. Because members of the respondent association had to comply with both the federal standards and the Illinois licensing requirements when operating in Illinois, the association challenged the state laws as pre-empted.

Issue

Whether the OSH Act and OSHA standards pre-empt nonapproved state laws that regulate occupational safety and health issues already covered by a federal standard, including state laws that also purport to protect public safety. More specifically, the question was whether Illinois's hazardous-waste worker licensing acts were pre-empted to the extent they imposed occupational safety and health standards without an approved state plan.

Rule

The OSH Act pre-empts any nonapproved state regulation of an occupational safety or health issue for which a federal standard is in effect, unless the State has obtained approval of a state plan under § 18(b). A state law that directly, substantially, and specifically regulates occupational safety and health is an occupational safety and health standard within the meaning of the Act, even if the law also serves nonoccupational purposes or has effects outside the workplace. State laws of general applicability that regulate workers and nonworkers alike, and that do not conflict with OSHA standards, generally are not pre-empted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada has no approved state occupational safety and health plan. Nevada enacts a statute requiring all refinery employees in Reno who work around benzene to complete 24 hours of state-approved safety instruction and pass a state exam, even though a federal OSHA standard already governs benzene exposure training. The statute states that it protects both workers and nearby residents.

Is the Nevada statute most likely preempted?

Explanation. The majority held that when a federal OSHA standard is in effect on an occupational safety or health issue, a State may regulate that issue only through an approved state plan. A dual-impact law does not escape preemption merely because it also protects the public. This Nevada law directly and specifically regulates workplace safety training on an already regulated issue, so it is preempted absent an approved plan. (Derived from Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association (1992).)