Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶74

Consider some examples of how they have proceeded in the past. Dissenting in National Federation of Independ ent Business v. OSHA, 595 U. S. 109 (2022) (per curiam) (NFIB), two of my concurring colleagues confronted a statute charging the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with promoting “safe and healthful working conditions.” Id., at 128, 132 (joint opinion of Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.) (internal quotation marks omitted). They read that language as authorizing the agency to impose a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans. Id., at 132; id., at 120 (per curiam). In support of their reading, my colleagues stressed the statute's “expansive language,” another provision authorizing the agency to issue temporary “emergency standards,” and “the scope of the crisis” the agency was trying to address. Id., at 132, 135 (joint dissent) (internal quotation marks omitted).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.