{"id":3554,"date":"2022-10-16T18:33:33","date_gmt":"2022-10-16T18:33:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/?p=3554"},"modified":"2025-04-01T19:17:40","modified_gmt":"2025-04-01T19:17:40","slug":"agency-names-do-not-constrain-agency-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2022\/10\/16\/agency-names-do-not-constrain-agency-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Agency Names Do Not Constrain Agency Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"

By:<\/em> Ryan H. Nelson<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In January, the Supreme Court quashed the best thing our government had done to fight the pandemic.\u00a0\u00a0In a\u00a0<\/span>6-3 opinion<\/span><\/a>, the Court paused implementation of the Biden Administration\u2019s <\/span>workplace vaccine-or-test-and-mask requirement<\/span><\/a> for larger private employers until its legal challenges resolved.<\/span><\/p>\n

Granting such a drastic provisional remedy requires a determination that the challengers are likely to prevail at the end of the litigation.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s majority believed that prerequisite to be satisfied because, in their view, the Occupational\u00a0Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) lacked authority to impose the workplace vaccine-or-test-and-mask requirement.\u00a0 According to the majority, the requirement was not \u201coccupational\u201d in most workplaces since workers can catch COVID-19 anywhere.\u00a0\u00a0OSHA then chose to <\/span>withdraw the requirement<\/span><\/a> rather than fight a battle it was almost certain to lose.<\/span><\/p>\n

The majority was wrong for several reasons.\u00a0 Foremost, all dangers that arise in the workplace are necessarily \u201coccupational\u201d dangers even if those dangers arise elsewhere, too.\u00a0 Take, for example, the backache you get from sitting at your desk at work, which you could also get from sitting in your armchair at home.\u00a0 Moreover, the law OSHA invoked to promulgate the requirement\u2014<\/span>Section 6(c) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970<\/span><\/a>\u2014does not use the word \u201coccupational.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, the Court\u2019s insistence that OSHA can regulate only \u201coccupational\u201d dangers is an atextual reconceptualization of the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers that belies precedent and sound governance in ways beyond the scope of this critique.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Yet, amidst this decision\u2019s derision, one particular line in the majority\u2019s opinion deserves pointed attention and castigation.\u00a0 In building its case for why the requirement needed to address dangers that were \u201coccupational\u201d in nature\u2014not merely address \u201cgrave danger\u201d to \u201cemployees,\u201d as Section 6(c) of the Act says\u2014the Court not only cited to the Congressional declaration of the Act\u2019s purpose and policy, but it appears to have been persuaded by the agency\u2019s name itself.\u00a0 \u201cAs its name suggests,\u201d the Court reasoned, \u201cOSHA is tasked with ensuring <\/span>occupational<\/span><\/i> safety.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite\u00a0<\/span>the Supreme Court\u2019s prior recognition that<\/span><\/a> \u201cthe title of a statute or section can aid in resolving an ambiguity in the legislation\u2019s text,\u201d the majority invoked the agency\u2019s<\/span>\u00a0name<\/span><\/i>, not the title of the Act or Section 6(c), and it did so without finding an ambiguity in Section 6(c) that it needed to resolve.\u00a0\u00a0Has the Court invented a new rule that government agencies\u2019 powers might be delimited by their names?\u00a0\u00a0If so, many federal initiatives could be doomed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of Housing and\u00a0<\/span>Urban<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Development\u00a0<\/span>has designated four \u201c<\/span>rural<\/span><\/i>\u201d communities<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in Florida, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina as promise zones aimed at \u201caccelerat[ing] and strengthen[ing] the community\u2019s own efforts at comprehensive community revitalization.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0The government should not cease this valuable work because the agency\u2019s name uses the word \u201curban\u201d and not \u201crural.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Within the U.S. Department of\u00a0<\/span>Veterans<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Affairs lies the\u00a0<\/span>National Cemetery Administration<\/span><\/a>\u2014the agency that runs Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.\u00a0\u00a0Its oversight includes\u00a0<\/span>several\u00a0<\/span>civilians<\/span><\/i><\/a>\u2019<\/span><\/i> graves<\/span>, such as those of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Supreme Court Justices Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and civil rights activist Medgar Evers.\u00a0\u00a0Their graves deserve care in this place of honor despite the word \u201cveteran\u201d in the agency\u2019s name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0<\/span>National<\/span><\/i>\u00a0Railroad Passenger Corporation<\/span><\/a>, better known as Amtrak, includes several\u00a0<\/span>routes\u00a0<\/span>outside of our nation<\/span><\/i><\/a>, including at least one route located entirely within Canada, between Aldershot and Toronto.\u00a0\u00a0The government ought not sever the tracks at the border on account of the word \u201cnational\u201d in the agency\u2019s name.<\/span><\/p>\n

New technology<\/span><\/a>\u00a0\u201cpreventing failure as well as expensive repairs and replacements\u201d in \u201celectrical generators\u201d was developed not by the U.S. Department of\u00a0<\/span>Energy<\/span><\/i>, but by the Bureau of Reclamation within the\u00a0<\/span>U.S. Department of the\u00a0<\/span>Interior<\/span><\/i><\/a>, the agency that manages natural resources and cultural heritage.\u00a0\u00a0The agency should not stop working to keep electricity prices down because the word \u201cinterior,\u201d not \u201cenergy,\u201d appears in its name.<\/span><\/p>\n

These examples highlight the absurdity of the Supreme Court\u2019s insinuation.\u00a0\u00a0Agency names do not constrain agency powers.\u00a0\u00a0Laws do.\u00a0\u00a0Hopefully, the Supreme Court\u2019s suggestion to the contrary was mere\u00a0<\/span>dicta<\/span><\/i>\u2014a throwaway, introductory clause prefiguring the actual legal analysis to come.\u00a0\u00a0But, with this Court\u2019s hostility to the administrative state, one can never be too certain.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ryan H. Nelson (@RyanHNelson) is an Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston.\u00a0<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: Ryan H. Nelson   In January, the Supreme Court quashed the best thing our government had done to fight […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":177,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-Vk","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/177"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}