The Supreme Court’s Jan. 13 order blocking enforcement of the OSHA emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 vaccination is drawing strident responses from all political corners.

The Supreme Court’s decision blocking implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard (ETS) holds that the economy-wide rule is too broad to fit within the agency’s authority to regulate “occupational safety,” but also provides a roadmap for more targeted limits that could survive judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s decision blocking implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard (ETS) holds that the economy-wide rule is too broad to fit within the agency’s authority to regulate “occupational safety,” but also provides a roadmap for more targeted limits that could survive judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s decision blocking implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard (ETS) holds that the economy-wide rule is too broad to fit within the agency’s authority to regulate “occupational safety,” but also provides a roadmap for more targeted limits that could survive judicial review.

The Supreme Court has reinstated a nationwide stay of OSHA’s emergency temporary standard (ETS) for COVID-19 vaccination, holding that challengers to the rule are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claims because the rule is broad enough to qualify as a “public health” mandate rather than an occupational standard.

The Supreme Court has reinstated a nationwide stay of OSHA’s emergency temporary standard (ETS) for COVID-19 vaccination, holding that challengers to the rule are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claims because the rule is broad enough to qualify as a “public health” mandate rather than an occupational standard.

The Supreme Court has reinstated a nationwide stay of OSHA’s emergency temporary standard (ETS) for COVID-19 vaccination, holding that challengers to the rule are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their claims because the rule is broad enough to qualify as a “public health” mandate rather than an occupational standard.

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) appears to be raising the bar for rejecting employers’ appeals of OSHA enforcement actions when they miss litigation deadlines or otherwise fail to follow required procedures, holding in a new order that appellants must be allowed to show a “good faith effort” at participating in proceedings.

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) appears to be raising the bar for rejecting employers’ appeals of OSHA enforcement actions when they miss litigation deadlines or otherwise fail to follow required procedures, holding in a new order that appellants must be allowed to show a “good faith effort” at participating in proceedings.

Observers on all sides expect the Supreme Court to stay implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-testing standard in the coming days, leaving many employers uncertain on how to move forward after its first compliance deadline arrived on Jan. 10, especially as OSHA has yet to act on requests for extensions -- including from the Postal Service.