Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.

1978-05-23

Headline: Court limits OSHA inspections, rules agency cannot conduct warrantless workplace searches and blocks surprise inspections without a warrant, affecting employers and federal safety enforcement.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant or equivalent judicial process for routine OSHA inspections of ordinary businesses, and that statutory authorization for warrantless inspections is unconstitutional as applied here.

Real World Impact:

Bars routine warrantless OSHA inspections of ordinary workplaces.
Requires inspectors to obtain warrants or court process before entering nonpublic areas.
May reduce surprise inspections and change OSHA enforcement scheduling.

Topics: workplace safety inspections, Fourth Amendment searches, OSHA enforcement, employer rights

Summary

Background

A federal workplace-safety agency (OSHA) sent an inspector to Barlow's Inc., an electrical and plumbing business in Pocatello, Idaho. The inspector showed credentials and asked to enter employee-only work areas but had no warrant. The owner, Ferrol G. Barlow, refused entry citing the Fourth Amendment. After a series of lower-court actions, a three-judge Federal District Court blocked warrantless OSHA inspections, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court answered whether the Constitution allows routine, warrantless OSHA inspections of ordinary businesses. The majority said the Fourth Amendment’s warrant protections apply to commercial buildings as well as homes. It held that OSHA cannot, by statute, authorize inspections without a warrant or its equivalent except for narrow, long-regulated industries (like liquor or firearms). The Court explained that a warrant or an equivalent judicial process gives a neutral check on executive power and tells owners the scope of an inspection. The Court rejected the agency’s arguments that warrants would cripple enforcement or that administrative rules alone protect privacy.

Real world impact

The decision stops routine, warrantless entries into nonpublic workplace areas for ordinary businesses. OSHA inspectors must obtain a warrant or use a court-ordered process before entering employee-only areas when the owner refuses. This will change how surprise inspections and enforcement are carried out and may shift some enforcement toward warrants or court proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that routine safety inspections are reasonable without a warrant, urged deference to Congress, and warned that the warrant rule will burden OSHA enforcement.