Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
The Supreme Court ruled that OSHA inspectors generally need a warrant before searching a business's work areas over the owner's objection, striking down the part of the Occupational Safety and Health Act that let inspectors enter without one.
The decision means federal regulators must get a warrant or similar court order to inspect most businesses, though the Court made clear such warrants can be issued on relaxed grounds and without proof that a violation actually exists.
“The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property.”
The majority's reasoning that businesses, like homes, are protected from warrantless government searches.
How it got here: A three-judge federal district court in Idaho ruled for the business owner and enjoined warrantless OSHA searches; the Secretary of Labor appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
An OSHA inspector arrived unannounced at Barlow's, Inc., an electrical and plumbing business in Pocatello, Idaho, and asked to inspect the nonpublic work areas. The owner, Bill Barlow, asked if there had been a complaint (there hadn't) and whether the inspector had a warrant (he didn't), then refused entry, citing his Fourth Amendment rights. The government later sought a court order compelling entry.
The question before the Court
Could a federal workplace-safety inspector search a business's work areas without a warrant when the owner refused to let him in?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that OSHA's provision allowing inspectors to search a business's work areas without a warrant, over the owner's objection, violates the Fourth Amendment. The Warrant Clause protects commercial property much like it protects homes, and OSHA inspections did not fall within the narrow exception the Court had previously recognized for industries like liquor and firearms dealing, which have such a long history of close government oversight that business owners are considered to have accepted routine inspection as a cost of doing business.
The Court made clear this warrant requirement is not burdensome: inspectors don't need evidence of an actual violation, only a showing that the business was selected under a neutral, general enforcement plan. Because most employers consent voluntarily and warrants on this relaxed standard should be easy to obtain, the Court concluded the Fourth Amendment's protections could be honored without meaningfully weakening OSHA enforcement.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Business owners across the country gained a legal basis to insist that OSHA inspectors obtain a warrant before entering nonpublic work areas. The ruling also affected other federal agencies with similar warrantless-inspection authority, though the Court limited its holding to OSHA and left room for warrants that are easy for agencies to obtain.
What changes now
The Court affirmed the district court's injunction against warrantless OSHA searches conducted over an owner's objection, but it clarified that the Secretary remains free to seek warrants or equivalent legal process meeting the relaxed administrative standard the Court described. OSHA could continue routine inspections through voluntary consent or by obtaining such process, so the ruling reshaped inspection procedure without halting enforcement of workplace safety law generally.
What this does not decide
The Court did not require inspectors to show probable cause of an actual violation to get a warrant; a general administrative inspection plan suffices. It also left open whether the compulsory-process order already used in this case, or similar procedures under revised regulations, might itself satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Stevens
“Until today, we have not rejected a congressional judgment concerning the reasonableness of a category of regulatory inspections of commercial premises.”The dissent's objection that the majority overrode Congress's judgment about OSHA enforcement.
Justice Stevens argued the majority misapplied the Warrant Clause, which he said is tied specifically to probable cause and has no application to routine regulatory inspections; instead such inspections should be judged only under the Fourth Amendment's general reasonableness standard. He would have deferred to Congress's judgment that warrantless inspections were necessary to enforce OSHA, and argued the 'inspection warrant' the majority requires adds little real protection since it doesn't require suspicion of any actual violation.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court began from the settled rule that warrantless searches of private property are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that this rule protects commercial premises as well as homes, relying on its earlier decisions in Camara v. Municipal Court and See v. Seattle.
- The Court considered whether OSHA inspections fell within a recognized exception for 'closely regulated' industries like liquor and firearms dealing, where a long history of pervasive government oversight erases any reasonable expectation of privacy and amounts to implied consent to inspection.
- The Court concluded general participation in interstate commerce, or having once been subject to minimum-wage rules under an older labor statute, does not create the kind of deeply rooted, industry-specific regulatory history needed for that narrow exception, so ordinary businesses like Barlow's did not qualify.
- The Court then weighed the government's argument that warrants would undermine surprise inspections and burden enforcement, but found that most employers consent voluntarily, that the Secretary's own regulations already anticipated seeking compulsory process after a refusal, and that ex parte warrants could preserve surprise just as well.
- The Court held that any warrant required here need not meet the traditional criminal-law standard of probable cause tied to a specific suspected violation; instead, it could rest on neutral administrative criteria, such as a general inspection plan based on employee counts or accident rates in an industry, making the warrant requirement comparatively easy to satisfy.
- Because no such exception applied and the burden of obtaining an easily satisfied warrant was modest, the Court concluded that OSHA's provision authorizing warrantless entry over an owner's objection violated the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States (397 U.S. 72)
The Court treated this liquor-industry inspection case as a narrow exception, not applicable to OSHA's broad reach across ordinary businesses.
Distinguishes United States v. Biswell (406 U.S. 311)
The Court limited this firearms-inspection case to closely regulated industries with a long history of oversight, unlike Barlow's business.
Reaffirms Camara v. Municipal Court (387 U.S. 523)
The Court relied on Camara's rule that warrantless searches of private property are presumptively unreasonable, applying it to businesses.
Reaffirms See v. Seattle (387 U.S. 541)
The Court relied on See's holding that businesses have Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless regulatory searches.