This Friday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s decision to issue an “emergency temporary standard” (“ETS”) requiring, with some exceptions, either mandatory COVID-19 vaccination or masking and testing by employers with 100 or more employees. The ETS Litigation presents significant questions of statutory interpretation and administrative law. I won’t address the issues at the heart of the cases in this blog post, but rather an interesting argument related to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction advanced on pages 85-86 of the Solicitor General’s brief. While that issue may not play a significant role in this week’s oral argument, it’s of interest to me—and maybe, just maybe, it might be of interest to a handful of readers of this blog.

In a nutshell, the Solicitor General’s argument concerns how Marbury v. Madison applies to Supreme Court consideration of agency action reviewed before the judgment of a lower court of appeals. The issue lies at the junction of Article III, the practice of certiorari before judgment, the appropriate standard of review, and administrative law.

Citation
Aditya Bamzai, Administrative Agencies and the Supreme Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction, Yale Journal of Regulation: Notice & Comment (2022).