Pending before the Supreme Court: Meet the Challengers to the OSHA ETS

Below are  links to the Supreme Court dockets for the following applicants/petitioners, each challenging the OSHA vaccine ETS that applies to companies with 100+ employees. The outlines are copied from the respective tables of contents.

Update, 1/6/22: The Supreme Court website replaced many of these links with an auto-forward to a message about COVID protocols. You may need to enter the party's name in a search box in order to access the dockets.

1. Word of God Fellowship, Inc.
   1. The ETS violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
   2. The ETS also violates the First Amendment.
   3. The Ministries join the arguments in the related proceedings before the Court as to why the ETS is unconstitutional and unlawful.
2. Job Creators Network, et al.
   1. OSHA Lacked Authority to Issue the Mandate
      1. The Mandate Violates Multiple Clear-Statement Doctrines
      2. The Mandate Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine
   2. Even if OSHA Has Authority, an ETS Is Inappropriate
3. National Federation of Independent Business, et al.
   1. There is a Reasonable Probability that Four Justices Would Vote to Grant Review, and a Fair Prospect That a Majority Would Declare the ETS Unlawful.
   2. Absent a Stay, the Business Associations and Their Members Will Suffer Substantial Irreparable Harms.
   3. The balance of the equities favors a stay.
4. Bentkey Services, LLC, dba The Daily Wire
   1. The Sixth Circuit Was Unduly Deferential to OSHA Because It Failed to Properly Apply the Correct Standard of Review: Substantial Evidence, Reviewed with a “Hard Look.”
   2. OSHA Failed to Establish By Substantial Evidence That COVID-19 is a Workplace Hazard Present for the Workplaces to Which It Applies.
   3. OSHA’s ETS Failed to Establish the Gravity of Potential Workplace Exposure for the Affected Employees, Ignoring the Key Elements of Risk: Age, Health Conditions, and Natural Immunity from Prior Infection.
   4. OSHA Failed To Establish The Necessity Of The ETS And It Is Overbroad, Underinclusive, And Therefore Arbitrary.
   5. The ETS’s Testing Requirement Undermines Its Alleged Necessity.
   6. The Balance of Equities Favors A Stay.
5. Betten Chevrolet, Inc.
   1. The Court Should Stay the Vaccine Mandate's Enforcement Pending Review.
   2. In the Alternative the Court Should Grant Certiorari before Judgment and Decide This Case on an Expedited Basis.
6. Republican National Committee
   1. The RNC Will Succeed On The Merits Because The Mandate Exceeds OSHA’s Statutory Authority.
   2. The RNC Will Succeed On The Merits Because The Mandate Is Unsupported By Substantial Evidence.
   3. The RNC Will Succeed On The Merits Because The Mandate Is Arbitrary And Capricious.
   4. The Equitable Factors Favor The Stay.
7. Scott Bedke, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. et al.
   1. The Idaho Legislature’s duty to pass legislation for the health and safety of Idaho citizens will be harmed if this Court dissolves the stay.
   2. The OSHA ETS infringes upon the Idaho Legislature’s police powers and its duty to enact laws related to public health.
8. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., et al.
   1. There is a Reasonable Probability that Four Justices Would Vote to Grant Review in Order to Resolve the Evident Conflict in the Circuits on an Issue of Extraordinary Importance.
   2. There is a fair prospect that a majority of this Court would declare the ETS unlawful.
   3. Enforcement of the OSHA ETS will Cause Construction Companies to Lose Irreplaceable Employees to Businesses that do not Require COVID Vaccinations or Testing.
9. The Heritage Foundation
   1. OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate is an Unlawful Exercise of Statutory Authority.
   2. The Sixth Circuit Was Wrong: The Constitutional Infringements Are Clear Here.
   3. The Balance of Equities Warrants the Stay.
   4. In the Alternative, This Court Should Grant Certiorari Before Judgment and Grant A Stay Pending the Resolution of This Petition.
   5. An Administrative Stay Should Be Granted Immediately.
10. BST Holdings, LLC, et al.
    1. The balance of harms cautions granting a stay in this case.
    2. This Court should grant a stay pending review because the Applicants will likely succeed on the merits that the Mandate exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.
    3. This Court should issue a stay because the Mandate violates the U.S. Constitution.
11. Ohio, et al.
    1. The States will likely prevail on the merits.
    2. The States and their citizens will be irreparably harmed without a stay.
    3. In the alternative, the Court should grant certiorari before judgment and decide this case on an expedited basis.
    4. The Court should issue an immediate administrative stay.
12. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, et al.
    1. The Mandate exceeds OSHA’s authority.
    2. The Mandate violates the First Amendment and RFRA.
    3. There is a reasonable probability that the Court will grant review.
    4. Absent a stay, Religious Institutions will suffer irreparable injuries.
13. Phillips Manufacturing & Tower Company
    1. The Vaccine Mandate Exceeds the Executive’s Authority.
    2. OSHA Failed to Demonstrate Grave Danger.
    3. OSHA Failed to Demonstrate Necessity.
    4. he Mandate Raises Grave Concerns Under the Commerce Clause & Encroaches Upon State Sovereignty.
    5. The Mandate Raises Grave Concerns Under the Nondelegation Doctrine.
14. FabArc Steel Supply, Inc., and Tony Pugh
    1. The Mandate Violates the Major Questions Doctrine.
    2. The Mandate Violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as Applied to Applicants.
    3. The Mandate Violates the Free Exercise Clause as Applied to Applicants.
    4. The Mandate Violates the Text of the OSH Act.
    5. The Mandate Violates the Commerce Clause.
    6. The Mandate Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine.

See also: amicus briefs in support of these applications for an emergency stay against the OSHA ETS.