Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association
505 U.S. 88 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) impliedly pre-empts any state law that directly, substantially, and specifically regulates an occupational safety and health issue for which a federal standard is already in effect, unless the state has an approved plan under Section 18(b) of the Act. A state law is not saved from pre-emption simply because it has a dual purpose of also protecting public safety.
Facts:
- In 1986, Congress, through the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), directed the Secretary of Labor to promulgate federal health and safety standards for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations.
- Pursuant to this directive, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established detailed regulations requiring workers handling hazardous waste to receive a minimum of 40 hours of instruction and three days of supervised field experience.
- In 1988, the State of Illinois enacted two licensing acts for hazardous waste equipment operators and laborers.
- The Illinois acts required workers to complete 40 hours of training, pass a written exam, and take an annual refresher course.
- The Illinois law also required applicants for a hazardous waste crane operator’s license to have a minimum of 4,000 hours of experience operating such equipment.
- Members of the National Solid Wastes Management Association, a trade association, were subject to both the federal OSHA regulations and the new Illinois licensing requirements.
- Illinois had not submitted a state plan to the Secretary of Labor for approval to develop and enforce its own occupational safety and health standards as provided for under Section 18(b) of the OSH Act.
Procedural Posture:
- The National Solid Wastes Management Association sued Mary Gade's predecessor in the U.S. District Court, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Illinois licensing acts.
- The District Court held that the acts were not pre-empted because they had a substantial purpose apart from promoting job safety, though it invalidated one provision.
- The Association, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the OSH Act pre-empts any state law that constitutes a direct, clear, and substantial regulation of worker safety if the state lacks an approved plan.
- The Court of Appeals remanded the case for the District Court to apply this standard to the specific provisions of the Illinois acts.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the pre-emptive scope of the OSH Act.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) pre-empt state licensing laws that regulate hazardous waste worker training and safety, even if those laws also serve a stated public safety purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the OSH Act pre-empts the Illinois licensing acts. State regulation of an occupational safety and health issue for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly pre-empted. The structure of the OSH Act, particularly Section 18, demonstrates Congress's intent to subject employers and employees to only one set of regulations, be it federal or a state-run program under a federally approved plan. Section 18(b) provides the exclusive method for a state to regulate in an area where OSHA has already promulgated a standard. A state law with a dual impact, serving both worker and public safety, is not saved from pre-emption if it has a direct and substantial effect on workplace safety, as it is still considered an 'occupational safety and health standard' under the Act.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the state law is pre-empted, but this is a case of express, not implied, pre-emption. The text and structure of Section 18 of the OSH Act itself mandate pre-emption. Section 18(b) requires that any state desiring to assume responsibility for an issue covered by a federal standard 'shall submit a State plan.' The most reasonable inference from this language is that a state which does not submit an approved plan may not enforce its own standards in that area. This statutory framework makes the pre-emption express, and there is no need to resort to a broader analysis of congressional purposes or objectives.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No, the OSH Act does not pre-empt the Illinois laws. There is a strong presumption against pre-empting state police powers unless Congress's intent is clear and manifest. The text of the OSH Act does not explicitly pre-empt non-conflicting state laws. The provisions of Section 18 can be read to permit a dual regulatory scheme where state laws supplement federal standards, so long as compliance with both is not impossible. Section 18(b) simply provides a mechanism for a state to pre-empt federal law, not the other way around. Without a clear statement from Congress, the Court should not infer an intent to preclude states from providing additional protection to workers and the public.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the OSH Act's broad pre-emptive power, establishing that states cannot supplement federal standards in areas where OSHA has acted. The Court's focus on the 'effect' of a state law rather than its stated 'purpose' prevents states from circumventing federal authority by couching worker safety regulations as public safety or environmental laws. This forces states into an all-or-nothing choice: either accept the federal OSHA regime or displace it entirely by creating a comprehensive, federally approved state plan. The case thus promotes national uniformity in occupational safety standards for industries operating across state lines.
Unlock the full brief for Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association