S-4427-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing OSHA's proposed rule titled "Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings," published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024. It would also block any "substantially similar" standard from being issued in the future. The bill does not replace the blocked rule with any alternative heat safety requirements.
Who benefits
Employers in industries with high heat exposure — including agriculture, construction, manufacturing, warehousing, and landscaping — who would avoid compliance costs such as written safety plans, rest break protocols, and acclimatization programs. Small businesses with limited administrative capacity that may have struggled to implement the rule's documentation requirements. Industries operating across diverse climates and geographies that argued the one-size-fits-all standard was poorly suited to their conditions.
Who is hurt
Outdoor and indoor workers in high-heat environments — estimated at tens of millions — who would lose a federal floor of heat safety protections. Agricultural workers, construction laborers, warehouse employees, and kitchen workers are disproportionately represented in heat-related illness and death statistics. Workers in states without their own OSHA-approved heat standards (the majority of states) would have no equivalent protection. Lower-wage workers, who are less able to negotiate individual workplace accommodations, may be particularly affected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that OSHA's proposed rule was overly prescriptive and applied uniform national requirements — such as specific high-heat triggers, mandatory rest break schedules, and detailed written safety plans — without accounting for meaningful differences in climate, industry, and workplace conditions across the country. They contend that a rigid, one-size-fits-all federal mandate would create compliance confusion, impose disproportionate costs on small employers, and paradoxically undermine worker safety by burying employers in paperwork rather than allowing flexible, context-appropriate responses. They further argue that existing OSHA general duty clause authority already requires employers to protect workers from recognized hazards, including heat.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that heat is the leading cause of weather-related worker deaths in the United States, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics recording hundreds of occupational heat fatalities annually and thousands more heat-related illnesses — figures widely considered undercounts. They contend that without a specific enforceable standard, OSHA's general duty clause has proven an inadequate enforcement tool, as it requires case-by-case proof of a recognized hazard rather than a clear compliance benchmark. They argue that blocking the rule — without providing any alternative — leaves tens of millions of workers, disproportionately low-wage and Latino, with no guaranteed federal heat protections.
Constitutional context
This bill exercises Congress's direct legislative authority to limit agency rulemaking, which is well within its Article I powers. The underlying OSHA rule implicates the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022): a sweeping, economy-wide regulation covering all industries and geographies could face independent judicial scrutiny under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) as to whether OSHA's existing statutory authority clearly authorized a rule of this scope and significance.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority by stripping the executive branch (OSHA/Department of Labor) of rulemaking power in this specific domain; the primary check is a future Congress passing new legislation to authorize a heat standard, or states exercising their own authority under state OSHA plans.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used legislation to block specific agency rules, most notably the Congressional Review Act (1996), which has been used dozens of times to nullify finalized agency rules; however, blocking a proposed rule before finalization via standalone legislation is less common.