National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA

Supreme Court of the United States · 2022 · Administrative Law

595 U.S. 109 (2022)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawmajor questionsvaccine mandateOSHACOVID-19emergency temporary standardworkplace safetypublic health

Facts

The Secretary of Labor, acting through OSHA, issued an emergency temporary standard covering roughly 84 million workers employed by employers with at least 100 employees. The rule required covered employers to develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, unless unvaccinated workers underwent weekly testing at their own expense and on their own time and wore masks at work. The rule broadly applied without distinctions based on industry or specific workplace risk and purported to preempt contrary state laws. OSHA had never before imposed such a broad mandate, and Congress had not enacted a similar measure.

Issue

Whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act plainly authorized OSHA to impose a nationwide emergency temporary standard requiring vaccination or weekly testing and masking for employees of employers with at least 100 employees. More specifically, the question was whether the rule was a permissible occupational safety standard or instead an impermissible broad public health measure.

Rule

Administrative agencies possess only the authority Congress has provided, and Congress must speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA may regulate occupational hazards and workplace safety, including occupation-specific risks related to COVID-19, but it may not impose broad public health measures untethered to workplace-specific danger without clear congressional authorization.

🔒

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.

The Department of Labor directs its workplace-safety division to issue an emergency rule requiring every employee of any firm with 75 or more workers in Texas, Ohio, and California to receive a newly developed vaccine against a fast-spreading respiratory virus or pay for weekly testing. The statute creating the division authorizes standards for occupational safety and health but says nothing expressly about vaccination programs.

If several employers seek a stay, which argument is strongest under the controlling majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority emphasized that agencies possess only the authority Congress has provided and that Congress must speak clearly when authorizing powers of vast economic and political significance. A sweeping vaccination-or-testing requirement imposed on millions of workers based only on employer size resembles a broad public health measure, not a workplace-specific occupational standard, absent clear statutory authorization.