Clarence Thomas Opinion Sparks Fury: 'My God'

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion calling on his colleagues to take up a challenge to the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has sparked anger on social media.

The nation's highest court declined on Tuesday to hear an appeal from Allstates Refractory Contractors after a lower court threw out the Ohio company's lawsuit against OSHA.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the 1970 federal law that gave OSHA the sweeping authority to issue workplace safety standards is valid as it limits the agency's oversight to workplace safety and establishes a set of principles to be followed in adopting safety standards, Reuters reported.

Allstates Refractory Contractors' challenge argued the law violates Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives lawmaking powers to Congress, and no other branch of the federal government.

Only two of the court's nine justices—Thomas and fellow conservative Neil Gorsuch—indicated that they would have taken up the case.

In an opinion dissenting from the decision, Thomas wrote that the question of "whether the Occupational Health and Safety Administration's broad authority is consistent with our constitutional structure is undeniably important."

He added that at least five justices "have already expressed an interest in reconsidering this Court's approach to Congress's delegations of legislative power... this petition is an excellent vehicle to do exactly that."

The Occupational Safety and Health Act "may be the broadest delegation of power to an administrative agency found in the United States Code," Thomas wrote. "If this far-reaching grant of authority does not impermissibly confer legislative power on an agency, it is hard to imagine what would."

Thomas expressing his desire to undermine an agency with a mission to ensure workers have safe working conditions sparked anger on social media.

"They're not even hiding it anymore," Rep. Morgan McGarvey, a Democrat from Kentucky, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Not only do extremists on the Supreme Court want to undermine the federal government's regulatory power—they've got their sights set on eliminating OSHA, an agency that exists solely to protect our workers."

McGarvey's spokesperson has been contacted for comment via email.

Actor Douglas Griffin wrote that Thomas wants to target an agency whose regulations "save countless lives everyday."

Griffin wrote: "Before I became an actor, I was a manichinist. OSHA regs save countless lives everyday. This is absolutely nuts. Thomas is detached from the realities hard work. He's corrupt and using his power to target America's guard rails."

One person said eliminating OSHA would put them out of work.

"Eliminating OSHA will result in me becoming unemployed, as companies won't have a need to hire safety managers anymore," they wrote on X. "This will also result in thousands of worker deaths and injuries. Clarence Thomas needs to be removed from his position."

Natalie Louise Shorter wrote simply: "My God."

While the court decided not to hear the case, Shorter wrote that "it's the fact that [Thomas] wanted to in the first place. The stakes are entirely too hight. Voting Blue up and down the ticket is out only option. These folks are dangerous."

Another person wrote on X that Thomas "saying he wants to eliminate OSHA the same day OSHA proposed a new rule to protect workers from extreme heat as a result of the effects of climate change...is so bleak."

One person said the opinion was Thomas "broadcasting he wants one of his billionaire benefactors to bring a case against OSHA" so the Supreme Court "can gut it too."

Thomas has faced sustained criticism for failing to report luxury trips paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow and others over many years.

The court adopted its first code of conduct in November last year after facing pressure over undisclosed gifts and trips and other scandals, but the policy was immediately met with criticism because it lacks a means of enforcement.

Thomas' dissenting opinion on Tuesday came at the end of a term where the Supreme Court's conservative majority issued several consequential opinions.

On Monday, it ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, a decision that likely means former president Donald Trump won't stand trial in his federal election interference case before the November election.

And on Friday, the court's six conservatives dealt a major blow to federal regulatory power by overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that had instructed judges to defer to government agencies in interpreting laws where the law is ambiguous.