Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Walsh, 625 F.Supp.3d 676

Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC (a small contractor that previously settled an OSHA citation) sued the Secretary of Labor and OSHA seeking a declaration that OSHA’s authority to promulgate permanent Section 6(b) "safety standards" is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power and an injunction barring enforcement.
The suit raised a threshold jurisdictional question because the OSH Act usually requires pre-enforcement challenges to standards to be filed in a court of appeals within 60 days.
Allstates framed its claim as a facial constitutional challenge to the statute (not an attack on any particular standard), arguing that the Act vests unbounded discretion in OSHA.
Defendants argued the statutory administrative-review framework precludes district-court jurisdiction and that Section 6(b) contains an intelligible principle sufficient to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine.
The court held the challenge was "collateral" to the Act’s review scheme (so district-court jurisdiction was proper) but rejected Allstates’ nondelegation challenge, finding §652(8)’s "reasonably necessary or appropriate" standard + statutory context supply an intelligible principle.
The court denied Allstates’ motion for injunctive relief and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Allstates' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Jurisdiction (review forum)	Facial statutory challenge is outside OSH Act review; district court may hear it	Act’s 60-day/court-of-appeals scheme controls and bars district court	District court has jurisdiction; claim is collateral to statutory review (Free Enterprise Fund factors)
Nondelegation (Section 6(b))	§6(b) gives OSHA unbounded lawmaking power; no intelligible principle	§652(8)’s "reasonably necessary or appropriate" standard, threshold finding of significant risk, and statutory context constrain OSHA	Nondelegation challenge fails; statute supplies an intelligible principle
Scope of challenge (safety vs. health standards)	Challenges permanent safety standards under §6(b); does not contest health-standard regime	Statute separately constrains health standards; safety standards are governed by §652(8) and precedent	Court recognized the distinction but rejected challenge to safety-standard delegation
Nationwide injunction / equitable relief	Seeks a universal injunction blocking OSHA enforcement of Section 6(b) standards	Universal anti‑enforcement injunctions are disfavored and raise equitable/scope concerns	Court skeptical of universal injunctions and denied Allstates’ request

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (permitting district-court review of certain collateral constitutional claims against an agency)
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (statutory review schemes can preclude district-court jurisdiction unless claims are collateral or would foreclose meaningful review)
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (upholding broad delegations where Congress provides an intelligible principle)
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene), 448 U.S. 607 (OSHA must make threshold finding of significant risk before promulgating standards)
National Maritime Safety Ass'n v. OSHA, 649 F.3d 743 (D.C. Cir.) (holding §652(8) supplies an intelligible principle for safety/health standards)
Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (recent nondelegation doctrine framework and discussion of intelligible-principle standard)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, 142 S. Ct. 661 (context on OSHA rulemaking and procedural requirements)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (standards for injunctive relief)
Blocksom & Co. v. Marshall, 582 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir.) (upholding statutory delegation to OSHA as sufficiently guided)