Clarence Thomas' Controversial Opinion On OSHA Sparks Outrage

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion calling on his colleagues to take up a challenge to the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has sparked anger on social media. The nation's highest court declined on Tuesday to hear an appeal from Allstates Refractory Contractors after a lower court threw out the Ohio company's lawsuit against OSHA. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the 1970 federal law that gave OSHA the sweeping authority to issue workplace safety standards is valid as it limits the agency's oversight to workplace safety and establishes a set of principles to be followed in adopting safety standards, Reuters reported.

Allstates Refractory Contractors' challenge argued the law violates Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives lawmaking powers to Congress, and no other branch of the federal government. Only two of the court's nine justices—Thomas and fellow conservative Neil Gorsuch—indicated that they would have taken up the case. In an opinion dissenting from the decision, Thomas wrote that the question of whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important.

He added that at least five justices have already expressed an interest in reconsidering this Court's approach to Congress's delegations of legislative power, stating that this petition is an excellent vehicle to do exactly that. The Occupational Safety and Health Act may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code, Thomas wrote. If this far-reaching grant of authority does not impermissibly confer legislative power on an agency, it is hard to imagine what would. Thomas expressing his desire to undermine an agency with a mission to ensure workers have safe working conditions sparked anger on social media.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey, a Democrat from Kentucky, expressed his concerns on X, formerly Twitter, stating, "They’re not even hiding it anymore. Not only do extremists on the Supreme Court want to undermine the federal government’s regulatory power—they’ve got their sights set on eliminating OSHA, an agency that exists solely to protect our workers." This sentiment reflects widespread fears regarding the implications of Thomas's dissent.

Actor Douglas Griffin weighed in on the matter, noting that before he became an actor, he was a machinist and recognized the life-saving importance of OSHA regulations. He described Thomas's actions as detached from the realities of hard work and called for accountability. Others chimed in, highlighting the potential consequences of eliminating OSHA, including job losses and increased workplace fatalities.

Natalie Louise Shorter expressed her disbelief simply stating, "My God." She emphasized that even though the court did not hear the case, the mere consideration by Thomas raised significant concerns about the future of worker safety regulations. Critics have pointed out that such opinions may be influenced by external pressures, suggesting a troubling trend within the Supreme Court regarding its stance on federal regulatory powers.

Criticism of Thomas is compounded by ongoing scrutiny regarding his financial disclosures, particularly concerning luxury trips funded by Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow. The Supreme Court adopted its first code of conduct in November last year, but the policy faced backlash for its lack of enforcement mechanisms. Thomas's dissenting opinion comes at a time when the court's conservative majority has made several significant rulings affecting federal regulatory authority, including a recent decision granting former presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

This ongoing dialogue about the role of OSHA and the judicial system's relationship with regulatory agencies highlights the importance of protecting worker rights and ensuring safe working conditions. The reactions to Thomas's opinion underscore the complexities of balancing governmental power with individual liberties, raising critical questions that society must grapple with in the coming years.