• Corpus ID: 21870826

A NOTE ON THE BENZENE CASE

@inproceedings{Scalia2008ANO,
  title={A NOTE ON THE BENZENE CASE},
  author={Antonin G. Scalia},
  year={2008},
  url={https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21870826}
}

• A. Scalia
• Published 2008
• Environmental Science, Law

THE INTENSE ANTICIPATION on the part of regulatory reform buffs that preceded the Supreme Court's benzene decision (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute) seems at first blush hardly to have been rewarded. The mountain brought forth a mouse-a three-one-onefour split decision that literally provides no conclusive answer to any legal question more general than whether the benzene exposure regulation promulgated by the Occupational. Safety and Health Administration… 

THE INTENSE ANTICIPATION on the part of regulatory reform buffs that preceded the Supreme Court's benzene decision (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute) seems at first blush hardly to have been rewarded. The mountain brought forth a mouse-a three-one-onefour split decision that literally provides no conclusive answer to any legal question more general than whether the benzene exposure regulation promulgated by the Occupational. Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on February 10, 1978, is valid. A scorecard on the major issues presented would look something like this: (1) Cost-benefit analysis. This was thought to be the centerpiece of the production since it had been the basis of the lower court's action in setting the regulation aside. Essentially the issue involves whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires OSHA to consider the disproportionateness of benefits to expenditures in issuing standards relating to toxic substances. (OSHA conceded that its standard could not lawfully produce "massive economic dislocation" in the affected industry, but acknowledged no obligation or ability to consider economic factors for any other purpose.) Score: NO-4, YES-1, NOT VOTING-4 (because these four justices found it unnecessary to reach the issue).