x
x

The Buckeye Institute Joins Brief Calling on SCOTUS to End the Abuse of Govt Regulatory Power

Mar 15, 2024

Columbus, OH – On Friday, The Buckeye Institute joined an amicus brief in KC Transport v. Su, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and rein in the “grandiose view” the U.S. Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) have of their own power.

“Once again, government officials are abusing their regulatory powers. This time, it is the U.S. Department of Labor,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “Under the government’s interpretation of its own power, the Mine Safety and Health Administration can now regulate independent trucking companies as mines because at some point—maybe only once—a truck they own hauled mined materials. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is.”

KC Transport, which Pacific Legal Foundation represents, is an independent trucking company that provides various hauling services. Although its trucks have hauled mined materials, it does not operate a mine and its property is not adjacent to a mine. So, imagine the company’s surprise when a MSHA inspector showed up at their repair shop and slapped the company with a fine. The Federal Mine Safety Commission threw out the fines, but the U.S. Department of Labor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under the Chevron doctrine, the D.C. Circuit overturned the commission’s ruling and told the Department of Labor that it, not Congress, could decide the limits of its own powers to regulate.

The brief was filed by Advancing American Freedom. In addition to The Buckeye Institute, 24 other organizations and individuals joined the amicus brief. 

# # #

UPDATE: On July 2, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”