This guy still doesn't get it. "[I]ssuing an EO" never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The "OSHA ETS route" is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.
That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there's nothing that can be challenged in court.
DSH wrote:
“
“THREE: It seems to me that not issuing an EO, and instead going the OSHA ETS route, is less direct, more muddy, and easier to wrangle about in court for a longer period of time. Which is what the feds want.
“
This guy still doesn’t get it. “[I]ssuing an EO” never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The “OSHA ETS route” is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.
That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there’s nothing that can be challenged in court.”
SH wrote:
Is there a reason that there can’t be a challenge to companies’ actions, due to there being an -absence- of any OSHA rule?
If the OSHA regulations are available, can’t the whole ‘book’ be used as proof that there is -no- rule in there justifying the actions of the companies with 100 or more employees?