Motion For Leave To File And Brief Of

Summary

A motion for leave to file and brief of members of Congress as amici curiae in support of applicants in National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al., No. 21A244 (consolidated with No. 21A247), on applications for stay of administrative action and a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit. The amici are 47 Senators and 136 Representatives, represented by John C. Sullivan of S|L LAW PLLC, and the motion is dated December 2021. The brief argues that the OSH Act does not authorize OSHA's emergency temporary standard requiring COVID-19 vaccines for employers with more than 100 employees, citing 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 652(8). It also argues that OSHA's reading would raise a nondelegation problem and violate the major questions doctrine. Appendix A lists the amici.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Motion For Leave To File And Brief Of.” Original at www.supremecourt.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/21a244-069-jan-03-2022-main-document-20220103213028710-moc-amicus-fina-fc57f064f3/, SHA-256 4bd138830a7877e2e1e26239f7288fbd742989df6dd828235524113e692843b8.

Full text

No. 21A244 (consolidated with No. 21A247)

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL.
Applicants,
v.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.
Respondents.

STATE OF OHIO ET AL.
Applicants,
v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.
Respondents

On Applications for Stay of Administrative Action and Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND BRIEF OF
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS

John C. Sullivan
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Blvd., Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
T: (469) 523-1351
F: (469) 613-0891
john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

The 183 undersigned members of Congress move for leave to file

the enclosed brief as amici curiae in support of applicants for an

administrative stay and alternative petition for writ of certiorari before

judgment. As United States Senators and Members of the United States

House of Representatives, amici provide a unique perspective concerning

the alleged delegation of legislative power to the executive agency here.1

Amici also move to file this brief without ten days’ notice to the

parties of their intent to file as ordinarily required by Sup. Ct. R. 37.2(a)

and to file this brief in an unbound format on 8½-by-11-inch paper rather

than in booklet form. These requests are necessary due to the press of

time related to the emergency nature of the applications for stay. Amici

did email counsel for applicants and respondents to obtain consent for

this filing. Applicants provided consent and respondents have not

responded to the request.

Amici members of Congress respectfully request leave to file the

enclosed brief.

1A complete list of the 47 Senators and 136 Representatives may be found in
Appendix A to this brief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John C. Sullivan
John C. Sullivan
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Blvd., Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
T: (469) 523-1351
F: (469) 613-0891
john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

DECEMBER 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Authorities ................................................................................... ii

Statement of Interest of Amici Curiae ...................................................... 1

Introduction and Summary of Argument ................................................. 4

Argument ................................................................................................... 5

I. Congress Did Not Provide OSHA With The Authority It Claims
Here ................................................................................................ 5

A. The Text of the OSH Act Does Not Support Implementation
of the ETS Mandate for COVID-19 Vaccines ......................... 6

B. Reading the OSH Act to Allow the Agency’s Interpretation
Would Create a Nondelegation Problem .............................. 10

II. Assuming OSHA Has The Authority It Now Claims Would Violate
The Major Questions Doctrine ..................................................... 13

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 17

Appendix A—List of Amici Curiae .......................................................... 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.,
141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) ............................................................. 11, 13, 15

Cal. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A.,
Inc.,
519 U.S. 316 (1997) ............................................................................. 14

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
529 U.S. 120 (2000) ......................................................................... 4, 16

Gundy v. United States,
139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ......................................................................... 10

INS v. Chadha,
462 U.S. 919 (1983) ............................................................................... 1

In re OSHA,
2021 WL 5914024 ....................................................................... passim

Jacobson v. Massachusetts,
197 U.S. 11 (1905) ............................................................................... 14

King v. Burwell,
135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ........................................................................... 4

Loving v. United States,
517 U.S. 748 (1996) ..................................................................... 1, 4, 12

In re: MCP No. 165
(6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) ....................................................................... 14

NFIB v. Sebelius,
567 U.S. 519 (2012) ............................................................................... 4

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n,
575 U.S. 92 (2015) ................................................................................. 1

U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass’n,
140 S. Ct. 1837 (2020) ................................................................... 13, 15

Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,
573 U.S. 302 (2014) ............................................................................. 13

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n,
531 U.S. 457 (2001) ....................................................................... 10, 12

Yates v. Untied States,
574 U.S. 528 (2015) ............................................................................... 8

Zucht v. King,
260 U.S. 174 (1922) ............................................................................. 13

Statutes

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) ............................. passim

29 U.S.C. § 652(8) ...................................................................................... 6

29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1) .............................................................................. 5, 8

Regulations

86 Fed. Reg. 61,439 ................................................................................. 12

86 Fed. Reg. 61,402–61,403....................................................................... 7

Other Authorities

Path Out of the Pandemic, The White House,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/ ............................................. 12

iii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE2

The separation of powers has long been known to be a defense

against tyranny. See MONTESQUIEU, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS 151–52 (T.

Nugent transl. 1949). And so it “remains a basic principle of our

constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not

intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.” Loving v. United

States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996). “The principle of separation of

powers was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the

Framers: it was woven into the documents that they drafted in

Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 946

(1983) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 124 (1976)). “To the

Framers, the separation of powers and checks and balances were more

than just theories. They were practical and real protections for

individual liberty in the new Constitution.” Perez v. Mortgage Bankers

Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 118 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring).

2 Under Rule 37.6 of the Rules of this Court, amici state that no counsel for a party

authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary
contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person
other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or
submission.

Those safeguards are just as relevant today. For example, if the

President becomes impatient with how the citizenry is responding to his

plan for dealing with a public health crisis, he may look to act (through

an agency) to advance his agenda more quickly. The President may

direct an agency to find some authority, somewhere, that could arguably

be used in furtherance of the agenda and then use that claimed authority

to enact a sweeping public health measure. But when an executive

agency overreaches the boundaries of its authority in enacting the

President’s agenda, it undermines both the vertical and horizontal

separation of powers that protect the people.

Amici are 47 United States Senators and 136 Members of the

United States House of Representatives concerned with the executive

overreach seen in the current administration’s response to the COVID-

19 pandemic. Congressional members have an interest in the powers

they delegate to agencies not being abused—the legislative authority

vested in the federal government belongs to Congress, not the Executive

branch. In this case, the promulgation by the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) of a sweeping, nationwide vaccine

mandate on businesses intrudes into an area of legislative concern far

beyond the authority of the agency. And it does so with a Mandate

enacted through OSHA’s extraordinary (and seldom-used) “emergency

temporary standard” (ETS) provision that allows for bypass of notice and

comment rulemaking under certain circumstances. That OSHA exceeded

its authority in enacting the ETS Mandate is not a “particularly hard”

question. In re OSHA, 2021 WL 5914024, at *4 (Sutton, C.J., dissenting

from the denial of initial hearing en banc).

Moreover, congressional members—as representatives of the

people of their States and districts—have an interest in the citizens they

represent being able to craft local solutions to problems facing their

States and districts. Federalism concerns should be addressed before

requiring federally-imposed solutions. And this is especially true when

the question at issue involves an area typically reserved to the States

(such as vaccine mandates). At the least, Congress should be forced to

make clear any delegations of authority into areas of State control.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Time and again this Court has recognized that a clear statement of

congressional intent must be present to find that Congress has ceded

decisions of great economic and political significance. King v. Burwell,

135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015). And this case involves an issue broader and

more important than those of the past addressed by this principle. See,

e.g., FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 137–43

(2000). Even assuming Congress has the power to enact mandatory

vaccination requirements across the country—a difficult question, see

NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 549–61 (2012)—such power cannot be

assumed to have been given away accidentally. To hold otherwise would

infringe the separation of powers necessary both to avoid arbitrary or

tyrannical rule and to make government effective and accountable. See

Loving, 517 U.S. at 757.

While OSHA misinterprets its textual authority to take the action

it attempts here, the lack of a clear statement from Congress that it could

do so presents an insurmountable hurdle to the agency’s expansion of the

ETS provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).

Vaccine mandates—a prototypical state police power—are not within the

purview of the OSH Act, let alone something on which Congress intended

OSHA to take unilateral action under its “emergency” powers. The ETS

Mandate proposed by OSHA cannot stand.

ARGUMENT

I. Congress Did Not Provide OSHA With The Authority It
Claims Here.

The ETS provision of the OSH Act allows OSHA to address only

“grave danger” in the workplace, which includes any “toxic or physically

harmful” agent, without going through notice and comment when such

an emergency standard is “necessary.” 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1). And in the

statutory scheme established by Congress, these conditions are a

meaningful restraint on the agency. OSHA, however, aggressively reads

the restrictions as an opportunity for the agency to branch out into public

healthcare policy. Not only does this reading violate the text of the OSH

Act, it would also create a nondelegation problem. That is because

Congress provided no authority—let alone an intelligible principle—for

OSHA to become a roving public health agency. The problem is avoided,

though, because the ETS Mandate does not meet the conditions for

issuing such a nationwide requirement on businesses.

A. The Text of the OSH Act Does Not Support
Implementation of the ETS Mandate for COVID-19
Vaccines.

With its ETS Mandate, OSHA imposes a COVID-19 vaccine

mandate for all large employers (those having more than 100 employees).

This exceeds the scope of OSHA’s congressionally-defined role, though.

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the OSH Act “covers only

workplace-specific hazards and permits only workplace-specific safety

measures.” In re OSHA, 2021 WL 5914024, at *7 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2021)

(Sutton, C.J., dissenting from denial of initial hearing en banc). After all,

OSHA rules apply to “employment and places of employment.” 29 U.S.C.

§ 652(8). But OSHA now wants to dictate virus protection measures

outside the workplace to stop a virus outbreak that is also taking place

outside the workplace. The ETS Mandate was thus flawed from its

inception.3

3 While the ETS Mandate also offers a testing option, OSHA is likely aware that the

increased cost to employers for testing will probably cause them to simply mandate
vaccines for their employees. Alternatively, if testing costs are imposed on employees,
they would likely take the vaccine unwillingly or quit their job. Either way, the
testing option in the Mandate will largely be illusory in practice as both employers
and employees would be reticent to pay for it. Moreover, the testing option is rightly
viewed as a punitive measure for those unwilling to get the vaccine since individuals
with a vaccine can contract and spread COVID-19.

The ETS Mandate also elides the specific statutory provisions set

forth by Congress to constrain use of OSHA’s emergency powers. First,

under OSHA’s own analysis, there is no “grave danger” as defined by the

OSH Act. BST Holdings, 17 F.4th 604, 613 (5th Cir. 2021). OSHA itself

has conceded that the “effects of COVID-19” range from mild to critical.

86 Fed. Reg. 61,402–61,403. Moreover, despite OSHA’s excuse that

smaller employers might not be able to administratively handle its new

rule, the exemptions from the Mandate for those small employers shows

that there is no grave danger. After all, “[i]f [OSHA] suddenly realized

that exposure to a new chemical created a ‘grave’ danger of cancer, it is

difficult to imagine that anyone would permit an emergency rule

targeting the problem to apply only to companies with over 100

employees in order to save the other companies money.” In re OSHA,

2021 WL 5914024, at *13 (Sutton, C.J., dissenting from the denial of

initial hearing en banc); see also BST Holdings, 17 F.4th at 616 (“[It may

be true that] companies of 100 or more employees will be better able to

administer (and sustain) the mandate * * * * But this kind of thinking

belies the premise that any of this is truly an emergency.”).

Second, a virus is not a “toxic or physically harmful” “agent” as

defined in the OSH Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1). In context, an agent

is a substance that is used for a particular purpose in the workplace—

e.g., a chemical being used by an employee is the employee’s agent to do

a particular job. COVID-19 does not fall into this category, irrespective

of whether OSHA can find a potential dictionary definition of “agent” that

matches the agency’s preferred outcome. Moreover, to avoid overreading

statutes, this Court will “rely on the principle of noscitur a sociis—a word

is known by the company it keeps.” Yates v. Untied States, 574 U.S. 528,

543 (2015). Here, the phrases “substances or agents” and “toxic or

physically harmful” denote something far different than a virus. Thus

“OSHA’s attempt to shoehorn an airborne virus that is both widely

present in society (and thus not particular to any workplace) and non-

life-threatening to a vast majority of employees into a neighboring phrase

connoting toxicity and poisonousness is yet another transparent stretch.”

BTS Holdings, 17 F.4th at 613.

Third, the ETS Mandate is not “necessary” as required by the

statute. That term in the OSH Act’s emergency standard goes far beyond

mere advisability. Indeed, it means that the action must be

indispensable, not “just appropriate.” In re OSHA, 2021 WL 5914024, at

*9 (Sutton, C.J., dissenting from the denial of initial hearing en banc).

But OSHA cannot argue that the mandate is indispensable for many

categories of workers under “any standard of review.” Id. at *11. It is

thus unsurprising that OSHA itself previously preferred “less intrusive,

more tailored protective measures” for this exact problem. Id. at *10.

Moreover, mandatory vaccinations do not stop individuals from

contracting and transmitting COVID-19. Vaccinated workers can still

contract and transmit COVID-19, including the new Omicron variant.

Given that fact, imposing masking and testing restrictions only on

unvaccinated workers makes no sense because all workers regardless of

vaccination status remain potential carriers and transmitters of the

virus. If the Rule does not cure the supposed grave danger in the

workplace, it cannot be necessary under the statute. Thus the ETS

Mandate cannot rise to the level of “necessary” required by the text of the

OSH Act.

B. Reading the OSH Act to Allow the Agency’s
Interpretation Would Create a Nondelegation
Problem.

“The nondelegation doctrine bars Congress from transferring its

legislative power to another branch of Government.” Gundy v. United

States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2121 (2019) (plurality op.). While the legislative

branch “may confer substantial discretion on executive agencies to

implement and enforce the laws,” id. at 2123 (citing Mistretta v. United

States, 488 U.S. 361, 372 (1989)), Congress must “lay down by legislative

act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to

[exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” Ibid. No such

intelligible principle exists if OSHA’s reading of the statute is correct.

OSHA seeks to trade on the broad delegations of authority to

executive agencies previously approved by this Court. See, e.g., Whitman

v. Am. Trucking Ass’n, 531 U.S. 457, 472–74 (2001). And to be sure, were

OSHA strictly relying on an ETS that was “necessary” to stop a “grave

danger” from a workplace “agent,” the agency could arguably find support

for that delegated authority. But the ETS Mandate here opens the door

for a power that would lack an intelligible principle—it would allow

OSHA to become a roving committee for general health policy. As this

Court has recognized, a failure to limit a word such as “necessary” vests

an agency with a breathtaking amount of authority that will have no

functional limitation. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. U.S. Dep’t of Health &

Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2489 (2021).

The challengers to the Mandate have not argued against OSHA’s

finding that individual employees might have better outcomes with

COVID-19 if they are vaccinated. This fact is irrelevant to OSHA’s

claimed power. Employees might also have better outcomes with the

disease if they exercised at night, took vitamins at home in the morning,

and avoided large gatherings on weekends. Yet no one would argue that

OSHA’s jurisdiction extends beyond the workplace to these activities. A

vaccine requirement is functionally an outside-the-workplace

requirement that individuals take action to provide themselves with

better individual outcomes when they do contract the virus. But that’s

not OSHA’s job. It was never meant to be the health police, “protect[ing]

unvaccinated working people from themselves based on highly personal

medical decisions.” In re OSHA, 2021 WL 5914024, at *11 (Sutton, C.J.,

dissenting from the denial of initial hearing en banc).

The administration’s stated goal for the ETS Mandate is to “reduce

the number of unvaccinated Americans by using regulatory powers.”

Path Out of the Pandemic, The White House,

https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/. This is not a purpose of either

the OSH Act generally or the emergency rule process specifically. Private

healthcare decisions are far afield from federal workplace-safety regimes.

To allow OSHA the authority to control such decisions would remove any

semblance of an intelligible principle in the delegated authority that

Congress has given the agency. As this Court has recognized, a

delegation of power that broad would need even more circumscribed

discretion. See, e.g., Loving, 517 U.S. at 772–73. Such boundaries are

clearly not present here and thus it may be inferred that OSHA was not

given power on that scale.

In short, there is no mousehole in which Congress could have even

tried to hide the elephant of the ETS Mandate here. See Whitman,

531 U.S. at 468. It is thus unsurprising that the ETS itself acknowledges

that OSHA has never used its authority before to mandate vaccination.

86 Fed. Reg. 61,439. There was no authority for it to begin doing so now,

either.

II. Assuming OSHA Has The Authority It Now Claims Would
Violate The Major Questions Doctrine.

Under the major questions doctrine, a congressional authorization

to mandate vaccines would have to be clear. Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,

573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014) (noting that Congress must “speak clearly if it

wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political

significance”). The major questions doctrine thus avoids the

nondelegation problems discussed above by ensuring that Congress does

not confer authority on an agency by accident. This is doubly true when

intruding into an area typically reserved for the States. Ala. Ass’n of

Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2489. An intrusion into state prerogatives on

vaccines—if legitimately tried by Congress—would need to be

accompanied by intelligible principles to guide the agency’s discretion.

U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass’n, 140 S. Ct. 1837,

1850 (2020) (“Our precedents require Congress to enact exceedingly clear

language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal

and state power and the power of the Government over private

property.”).

Vaccine mandates are traditionally the province of the States.

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922) (finding it “settled that it is within

the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination”);

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 (1905) (holding that authority

to enact a compulsory vaccination law is found in a state’s “police

power,—a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a

member of the Union under the Constitution”). And courts must operate

under the “assumption that the historic police powers of the States [a]re

not to be superseded by [a] Federal Act unless that [is] the clear and

manifest purpose of Congress.” Cal. Div. of Labor Standards

Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 325 (1997).

While the panel majority in the Sixth Circuit protested that there

may be both federal and state regulatory powers over an area, In re: MCP

No. 165, (6th Cir. Dec. 17, 2021), at *34, that argument is irrelevant for

three reasons. First, it is unclear if even Congress could pass a

nationwide vaccine mandate. See in re OSHA, 2021 WL 5914024, at *18

(Sutton, C.J., dissenting from the denial of initial hearing en banc) (“For

while Congress has long sought to facilitate safe and effective vaccines, it

has never invoked the commerce power to mandate their administration

upon the public at large.”). Second, it confuses congressional action with

agency action—when authority does exist for such actions, it is Congress

that must act in the first instance to initiate its use. Third, and most

importantly, the panel’s argument misses the point that the inquiry is

not if Congress could legislate in an area but whether Congress has

legislated in an area.

When Congress intends to act in a field known to fall within the

purview of the States, it must pass an act clearly authorizing such an

intrusion. Cowpasture River, 140 S. Ct. at 1850 (requiring “exceedingly

clear language”). Because that has not been done here, it is even more

plain that Congress did not give that power to an agency bureaucrat. The

very purpose of the major questions doctrine is to prevent courts from

assuming congressional intent to delegate authority—it is not to assess

whether Congress could have done it. The Sixth Circuit panel’s rejection

of the doctrine only shows that it was answering the wrong question.

Even if the statutory text appeared to leave open the possibility of

a vaccine mandate ETS, the “sheer scope” of the agency’s claimed

authority would counsel against the government’s interpretation. Ala.

Ass’n of Realtors, 141 S. Ct. at 2489. Here the sheer scope isn’t just the

enormous sums of money and the numerosity of the people affected,

either—it is the intrusion into States’ rights. Ibid. (“And the issues at

stake are not merely financial. The [agency action] intrudes into an area

that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant

relationship.”). Without clear congressional authority in the regulatory

scheme for such an expansion of agency authority into the realm of state

police powers, it may not be assumed to exist.

Moreover, the sudden “discovery” of authority under the OSH Act

confirms that it was never intended to displace state authority in this

area. Utility Air Reg. Group, 573 U.S. at 324 (“When an agency claims

to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a

significant portion of the American economy,’ we typically greet its

announcement with a measure of skepticism.” (quoting Brown &

Williamson, 529 U.S. at 159). As the Fifth Circuit put it, OSHA is

attempting to use “an old statute * * * in a novel manner” to impose

billions of dollars in compliance costs to “resolve one of today’s most hotly

debated political issues” in an area “outside of OSHA’s core

competencies.” BTS Holdings, 17 F.4th at 617. Thus, under this Court’s

major questions doctrine, rejection of OSHA’s claimed authority here is

certain.

CONCLUSION

A stay pending review should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John C. Sullivan
John C. Sullivan
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Blvd., Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
T: (469) 523-1351
F: (469) 613-0891
john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

DECEMBER 2021

APPENDIX A—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE

UNITED STATES SENATORS

John Barrasso
Marsha Blackburn
Roy Blunt
John Boozman
Mike Braun
Richard Burr
Shelley Moore Capito
Bill Cassidy
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Kevin Cramer
Mike Crapo
Ted Cruz
Steven Daines
Joni Ernst
Deb Fischer
Lindsey O. Graham
Chuck Grassley
Bill Hagerty
Josh Hawley
John Hoeven
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Jim Inhofe
Ron Johnson
John Kennedy
James Lankford
Cynthia Lummis
Michael S. Lee

Roger Marshall
Mitch McConnell
Jerry Moran
Lisa Murkowski
Rand Paul
Rob Portman
James E. Risch
Mike Rounds
Marco Rubio
Ben Sasse
Rick Scott
Tim Scott
Richard C. Shelby
Dan Sullivan
John Thune
Thom Tillis
Patrick Toomey
Roger Wicker
Todd Young

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rick W. Allen
Elise Stefanik
Virginia Foxx
Jim Banks
Kevin McCarthy
Steve Scalise
Robert Aderholt
Mark Amodei
Kelly Armstrong

Jodey C. Arrington
Brian Babin
Don Bacon
James R. Baird
Troy Balderson
Andy Barr
Jack Bergman
Andy Biggs
Dan Bishop
Mo Brooks
Vern Buchanan
Ted Budd
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Kat Cammack
Earl “Buddy” Carter
Steve Chabot
Ben Cline
Michael Cloud
Andrew Clyde
James Comer
Eric A. “Rick” Crawford
Dan Crenshaw
Warren Davidson
Rodney Davis
Jeff Davis
Neal Dunn
Ron Estes
Pat Fallon
Drew Ferguson, IV
Michelle Fischbach
Scott Fitzgerald
Brian Fitzpatrick

Chuck Fleischmann
Jeff Fortenberry
Russ Fulcher
Matt Gaetz
Mike Gallagher
Bob Gibbs
Louie Gohmert
Bob Good
Lance Gooden
Paul Gosar
Kay Granger
Garret Graves
Mark Green
Marjorie Taylor Greene
H. Morgan Griffith
Glenn Grothman
Michael Guest
Brett Guthrie
Andy Harris, M.D.
Diana Harshbarger
Vicky Hartzler
Yvette Herrell
Jody Hice
French Hill
Ashley Hinson
Richard Hudson
Darrell Issa
Ronny L. Jackson
Chris Jacobs
Bill Johnson
Dusty Johnson
Mike Johnson

Jim Jordan
John Joyce, M.D.
Fred Keller
Trent Kelly
David Kustoff
Doug LaMalfa
Doug Lamborn
Jake LaTurner
Debbie Lesko
Billy Long
Barry Loudermilk
Nancy Mace
Nicole Malliotakis
Tracey Mann
Thomas Massie
Brian Mast
Lisa McClain
Tom McClintock
Patrick McHenry
David B. McKinley, P.E.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Dan Meuser
Mary Miller
Carol D. Miller
Mariannette Miller-Meeks, M.D.
John Moolenaar
Alexander X. Mooney
Barry Moore
Blake Moore
Markwayne Mullin
Gregory F. Murphy, M.D.
Dan Newhouse

Ralph Norman
Jay Obernolte
Burgess Owens
Steven Palazzo
Gary Palmer
Scott Perry
August Pfluger
Bill Posey
Mike D. Rogers
John Rose
David Rouzer
Chip Roy
John Rutherford
Austin Scott
Adrian Smith
Jason Smith
Lloyd Smucker
Victoria Spartz
Michelle Steel
W. Gregory Steube
Claudia Tenney
Glenn “GT” Thompson
Beth Van Duyne
Ann Wagner
Tim Walberg
Jackie Walorski
Randy Weber
Bruce Westerman
Roger Williams
Joe Wilson
Robert J. Wittman

File and source

File: 21A244_069_Jan_03_2022_Main_Document_20220103213028710_MOC_Amicus_FINAL.pdf
Size: 257,123 bytes
SHA-256: 4bd138830a7877e2e1e26239f7288fbd742989df6dd828235524113e692843b8
Our copy: 21A244_069_Jan_03_2022_Main_Document_20220103213028710_MOC_Amicus_FINAL.pdf
Original: www.supremecourt.gov

Motion For Leave To File And Brief Of

Summary

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records