MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR
v.
BARLOW'S, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Secretary of Labor sought a stay of a District Court injunction that struck down a provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act allowing warrantless workplace inspections as violating the Fourth Amendment. Justice Rehnquist granted a partial stay of the injunction, preserving the government's ability to conduct OSHA inspections outside the District of Idaho and for parties not involved in the lawsuit, pending the Supreme Court's full review of the constitutional question.
[1] A federal statute, presumptively constitutional, should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by the Supreme Court when a district court has invalidated…
[2] A circuit justice may grant a stay of a district court's injunction that invalidates a federal statute, particularly when the stay does not affect the parties before the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Secretary of Labor, applies for a partial stay of an injunction issued by a three-judge District Court for the District of Idaho. That court held that § 8 (a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1598, 29 U.
S. C. § 657 (a), allowing warrantless entry and inspection of work places for OSHA violations, is in conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and enjoined further searches by the Secretary’s representative pursuant to that section. The applicant does not seek a stay of the order insofar as it protects the respondent from future searches, but only as it protects persons not party to this suit.
On January 25, 1977, I granted a stay of the order to the extent that the order restrains the applicant’s conduct outside of the District of Idaho.
Upon consideration of the response subsequently filed, I now grant in full the applicant’s request for a stay of the three-judge court order as it affects persons other than the respondent. On the merits of the Fourth Amendment question, the District Court relied on our decisions in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523 (1967), and See v. City of Seattle, 387 U. S. 541 (1967).
The applicant relies on our decisions in Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U. S. 72 (1970), and United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311 (1972), to urge a contrary result. The proposed stay will not affect the respondent in any way, and there are no equities weighing against it which may be asserted by persons actually before the Court. In such ’a situation, where the decision of the District Court has invalidated a part of an Act of Congress, "I think that the Act of Congress, presumptively constitutional as are all such Acts, should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court.
The Secretary’s application for a stay is accordingly granted pending the timely filing of a notice of appeal and jurisdictional statement, and the disposition of the same by this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. Nw. Orient Airlines, Inc., 574 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1978)…No. 77-C-856 (N.D.Ill., filed Apr. 12, 1977); Hayes-Albion Corp. v. Marshall, supra; Brennan v. Gibson’s Products, Inc., supra. But see, e. g., Barlow’s, Inc. v. Usery, 424 F.Supp. 437 (D.Idaho 1976), stay granted sub nom. Marshall v. Barlow’s Inc., 429 U.S. 1347, 97 S.Ct. 776, 50 L.Ed.2d 739, probable jurisdiction noted, 430 U.S. 964, 97 S.Ct. 1642, 52 L.Ed.2d 354 (1977). The Supreme Court followed exactly this course of action in Camara, supra. Adhering to these precedents, the district court issued a war…
-
New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. FOX Co., 434 U.S. 1345 (U.S. 1977)…said before, statutes are presumptively constitutional and, absent compelling equities on the other side, which I do not find in this case, should remain in effect pending a final decision on the merits by this Court. Cf. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 429 U. S. 1347, 1348 (1977) (Rehnqulst, J., in chambers). [*1353] It is therefore ordered that, pending applicant’s timely filing and this Court’s disposition of a jurisdictional statement, the injunction entered by the District Court for the Central District of C…
-
Walters v. Nat'l Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, 468 U.S. 1323 (U.S. 1984)…ption of constitutionality which attaches to every Act of Congress is not merely a factor to be considered in evaluating success on the merits, but an equity to be considered in favor of applicants in balancing hardships. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 429 U. S. 1347 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). The application for a stay is accordingly granted pending the timely filing of a jurisdictional statement and the disposition of the same by this Court.…
Authorities Cited
- Camara v. Mun. Court of the City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1967)
- SEE v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1967)
- United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1972)
- Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1970)