Skip to main content
Book cover

SCOTUS 2022 pp 99–107Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Alabama Realtors, Biden v. Missouri, and NFIB v. OSHA on the Pandemic Regulations

  • 163 Accesses

Abstract

The Supreme Court was not the primary government actor charged with responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, a duty which fell to elected officials in Washington DC, Governor’s mansions, and statehouses, as well as to expert civil servants in federal, state, and local executive branch agencies that focus on public health. But the Court’s exercise of judgment was still fundamental to the pandemic response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

eBook
USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   27.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    NFIB v. OSHA decision page 1 and Breyer dissent page 12.

  2. 2.

    Repeated in Alabama Realtors decision at 6, Biden v. Missouri Thomas dissent at 6, NFIB v. OSHA decision at 6, and Gorsuch concurrence at 2.

  3. 3.

    For contrasting views, see Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (University of Chicago Press, 2014) and Jerry Mashaw, Creating the Administrative Constitution (Yale University Press, 2012).

  4. 4.

    Herschel Nachlis, “The FDA’s Evolving COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorizations,” Health Affairs Blog, 20 October 2020.

  5. 5.

    See Nina Totenberg, “Divisions at the U.S. Supreme Court Are Playing Out in Differences Among the Justices,” NPR, 18 January 2022.

  6. 6.

    Alabama Realtors decision at 2–3, quoting 42 U.S. Code §264(a).

  7. 7.

    Alabama Realtors June 29 order Kavanaugh concurrence at 1.

  8. 8.

    Alabama Realtors decision at 1 and 6.

  9. 9.

    Ibid. at 6, internal quotation marks omitted.

  10. 10.

    Ibid. at 8.

  11. 11.

    Biden v. Missouri decision at 5.

  12. 12.

    Ibid. at 5 and 6, quoting 42 U.S. Code §1395x(e)(9).

  13. 13.

    Biden v. Missouri Thomas dissent at 4, internal quotation marks omitted.

  14. 14.

    Biden v. Missouri Alito dissent at 2 and 3.

  15. 15.

    Biden v. Missouri Thomas dissent at 7.

  16. 16.

    Biden v. Missouri decision at 9.

  17. 17.

    NFIB v. OSHA decision at 9.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. at 5–8. For detailed discussions of the MQD and the “clear statement” rule, see Melnick’s Chapter 11, and on the related issue of Chevron deference, see A.K. Shauku’s Chapter 10.

  19. 19.

    See Keith E. Whittington and Jason Iuliano, “The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine” 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2017).

  20. 20.

    NFIB v. OSHA Gorsuch concurrence at 5 and 6.

  21. 21.

    Biden v. Missouri decision page 7, Breyer dissent at 7.

  22. 22.

    Breyer dissent at 2, quoting 29 U.S. Code §651(b), (b)(5) and §655(c)(1), and 4.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. at 13–14, and 9.

  24. 24.

    On these transformations and the Court’s more deferential 2020–2021 pandemic decisions, see Herschel Nachlis, Kyle Thomson, Amy Park, and Annika Begley, “The Supreme Court Faces More Pandemic Questions This Term,” The Washington Post, 24 September 2021.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herschel Nachlis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nachlis, H. (2023). Alabama Realtors, Biden v. Missouri, and NFIB v. OSHA on the Pandemic Regulations. In: Marietta, M. (eds) SCOTUS 2022. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18468-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics