Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • PRIVACY—S.D. Cal.: Employee did not waive privacy right in personal email data on company provided laptop
    • CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Va.: Naval-engineer no-poach class action will proceed against all remaining defendants
    • DISCRIMINATION—D.D.C.: Long-time DOL employee, passed over for promotions, cannot show bias motivated decisions
    • EEOC NEWS—$800K recovered to remedy discrimination and retaliation; new ADA suit filed; Project Firewall progresses
    • EMPLOYEE STATUS—C.D. Cal.: Freight company could not satisfy one element of its affirmative defense, that its truck drivers were independent contractors
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court allows CIPA claim involving third-party pixels to proceed, ignores contrary case law: What your business needs to know
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—OSHA retaliation claims under Section 11(c): A legal and practical guide for employers
    • IMMIGRATION NEWS—USCIS sharply curtails validity period of employment authorization docs for certain alien categories
    • LABOR—ARBITRATION—N.D. Ill.: Employer must pay fines awarded to union after its failure to comply with decision of grievance committee
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—California’s Attorney General settles no-poaching agreement suit against sanitation company
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Texas produce association challenges OSHA’s rulemaking authority as unconstitutional delegation
    • RETALIATION—W.D. Va.: Retired astronomer, stripped of emeritus title after criticizing DEI practices, advances Title VII claim
    • VITAL BRIEFING—Britain avoids pharma tariffs, agrees to NHS drug pricing reforms
    • WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Texas produce association challenges OSHA’s rulemaking authority as unconstitutional delegation, (Dec 5, 2025)

    Organizations Mentioned:Southeastern Legal Foundation

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    “For decades, OSHA has relied on... open-ended language to regulate nearly every corner of the American economy—from office settings to retail shops to small family businesses—without meaningful limits from Congress.”

    Accor ...

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    “For decades, OSHA has relied on... open-ended language to regulate nearly every corner of the American economy—from office settings to retail shops to small family businesses—without meaningful limits from Congress.”

    According to a lawsuit announced this week by Texas-based agricultural trade associations, including the Texas International Produce Association, Congress’s delegation of legislative power to the Executive Branch by way of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) violates the nondelegation doctrine.

    The Texas Public Policy Foundation, along with the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), represent the two trade organizations whose members work across the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, including, according to the Foundations, many small and family-owned businesses. “Both trade organizations and their members—along with virtually every other employer in America—must comply with costly, complex, and ever-expanding OSHA rules,” they contend, “even though Congress never made the fundamental policy judgments those rules require.”

    “If Congress wants OSHA to regulate every workplace in America,” they state, “it must make those basic policy choices itself—not hand the agency a blank check to decide how much safety is ‘enough,’ what risks justify billions in compliance costs, or which businesses must shoulder those burdens.”

    Non-delegation violation alleged. Specifically, the lawsuit asks whether Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine when it gave the Secretary of Labor “the power to set workplace safety standards under 29 U.S.C. § 655(b) (the safety standards delegation).”

    The associations rely upon the “intelligible principles” test from J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928), arguing that the test “demands that Congress make clear both ‘the general policy’ for the agency to pursue and ‘the boundaries of [its] delegated authority’” but that the “safety standards delegation contains no intelligible principle.”

    The complaint was filed in the Northern District of Texas; the case is No. 2:25-cv-00261-Z.

    News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews Safety

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use