Chevron Decision and Its Impact on the OSH Act

The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark Chevron deference has significant implications for the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the regulatory landscape at large. This ruling, resulting from the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its companion case, has dismantled a 40-year-old precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes if those interpretations were deemed reasonable.

Established in 1984 through Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Chevron deference allowed federal agencies considerable leeway in interpreting ambiguous laws. The doctrine held that if a statute was unclear, courts should defer to the agency's expertise, provided their interpretation was reasonable. This principle has been a cornerstone of administrative law, enabling agencies to fill in the gaps where congressional statutes were not explicit.

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine, asserting that courts, not agencies, should have the final say in interpreting ambiguous laws. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that agencies do not possess special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities and that judicial deference to agencies' interpretations was misguided. This decision marks a significant shift in the balance of power between federal agencies and the judiciary.

The reversal of Chevron deference directly impacts the enforcement and interpretation of the OSHA. OSHA, which has relied on Chevron deference to implement and enforce workplace safety regulations, will now face increased judicial scrutiny. Without Chevron deference, OSHA's ability to interpret and enforce ambiguous provisions of the OSH Act may be challenged more frequently in court. This could lead to a more constrained regulatory environment where OSHA's directives and interpretations are subject to stricter judicial review. For example, rules and regulations that OSHA develops to address emerging workplace hazards may now be more vulnerable to legal challenges. Businesses and other regulated entities might be more inclined to contest OSHA's interpretations of the OSH Act, potentially leading to prolonged litigation and uncertainty in the enforcement of safety standards.

The broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision extend beyond OSHA. This ruling affects all federal agencies, including those regulating environmental protection, public health, consumer safety, and more. By eliminating Chevron defense, the Court has effectively increased the judiciary's role in interpreting laws, potentially leading to a more fragmented and less predictable regulatory environment.

In the context of workplace safety, Chevron decision could slow down the implementation of new regulations designed to protect workers from modern hazards such as heat stress, ergonomic risks, and chemical exposures. Some examples of how this might happen might include:

? Interpretations of statutes may lead to longer legal battles and delays in implementing new worker protection regulations.

? Confidence in OSHA’s authority to interpret statutes broadly, resulting in slower regulatory action as they seek clearer statutory mandates from Congress.

? Industries affected by new regulations may be more likely to challenge them in court, knowing that courts are now less deferential to agency interpretations, thus delaying implementation.

? OSHA may need to allocate more resources to defend their regulations and related interpretations in court, diverting attention and resources away from the development and enforcement of new safety standards.

? Steps to more narrowly focus regulations to avoid legal challenges could result in potentially addressing hazards less comprehensively and leaving some risks unmitigated.

? Fear of judicial pushback may lead OSHA to issue fewer or less detailed guidance documents, which are essential for helping employers understand and comply with regulations.

? More conservative regulatory approaches might be the standard response from OSHA which could reduce the likelihood of implementing innovative solutions to emerging hazards like heat stress or ergonomic risks.

? Employers and workers may face greater uncertainty regarding future regulations, potentially leading to inconsistent safety practices and slower adoption of new protective measures.

All these factors collectively contribute to a slower, more cumbersome process for developing and enforcing regulations aimed at protecting workers from modern hazards.

Stakeholders, including employers, workers, and safety professionals, must stay informed about these developments and actively participate in the regulatory process to help shape a safe and healthy working environment in the post-Chevron era.

James A. Junkin, MS, CSP, MSP, SMS, ASP, CSHO is the chief executive officer of Mariner-Gulf Consulting & Services, LLC and the chair of the Veriforce Strategic Advisory Board and the past chair of Professional Safety journal’s editorial review board. James is a member of the Advisory Board for the National Association of Safety Professionals (NASP). He is Columbia Southern University’s 2022 Safety Professional of the Year (Runner Up), a 2023 recipient of the National Association of Environmental Management's (NAEM) 30 over 30 Award for excellence in the practice of occupational safety and health and sustainability, and the American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) 2024 Safety Professional of the Year for Training and Communications, and the recipient of the ASSP 2023-2024 Charles V. Culberson award. He is a much sought after master trainer, keynote speaker, podcaster of The Risk Matrix, and author of numerous articles concerning occupational safety and health.