We are living in 1984, and the judiciary is wholly infected... Merriam Webster updates definition of "agent"

On December 17th, Judge Jane B. Scratch and Judge Julia Gibbons of the 6th Circuit dissolved the 5th Circuit's stay for OSHA's ETS Vaccine Mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees.

Note: Playing catch up with this December 27, 2021 post, adding it to our new substack. All substack posts are free to read. We added an optional monthly, annual, and founding member subscription. All proceeds support the efforts of The Gavel Project.

We are living in 1984, and the judiciary is wholly infected.

On December 17th, Judge Jane B. Scratch and Judge Julia Gibbons of the 6th Circuit dissolved the 5th Circuit's stay for OSHA's ETS Vaccine Mandate for businesses with 100 or more employees.

By dissolving the stay, Judges Scratch and Gibbons put millions of Americans in danger of either losing their jobs or risking permanent injury or death with the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Judges explained that the primary reason for dissolving the stay was due to the 5th Circuit's failure to consider a sufficiently “holistic view of the language that Congress chose to include in its statutory authorization of OSHA.” (Opinion at 10). This sentence refers to OSHA’s initial grant of authority by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), promulgated in 1970.

Because COVID-19 is a virus, for OSHA's ETS COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate to be legal, the OSH Act must have granted OSHA authority to regulate “viruses.” However, the provision from the OSH Act granting OSHA its authority to issue an ETS (29 U.S.C. § 655(c)(1)) does not include the word “virus” or "viruses"

Instead, § 655(c)(1) explains that OSHA’s Secretary is required to issue an ETS if he or she determines that the contemplated regulation is necessary to protect employees from grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful.

Legally, the terms "substances" and "agents" are qualifiers. Meaning, they define from what a danger must emanate for OSHA to have the authority to issue an ETS addressing the problem.

Thus, for a virus to be subject to OSHA regulation, it must have been contemplated as an “agent” or “substance" by drafters of the OSH Act (in 1970).

Immediately following its declaration that the 5th Circuit failed to consider an appropriately “holistic view of the language that Congress chose to include in [("inside" or "within")] its statutory authorization of OSHA[,]” the 6th Circuit blatantly disregarded its own standard by referring to Merriam Webster’s definition of the term “agent” (obviously, definitions from Merriam Webster do not come from "within" the OSH Act).

Judge Scratch and Gibbons explain, “[a]n ‘agent’ is ‘a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle.” (Opinion at 10) (citing, Agent, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agent).

I checked Merriam Webster’s website. It turns out that the referenced definition, didn’t exist when the OSH Act was drafted. In fact, this definition didn't exist until sometime until after 2016 (see photos Merriam-Webster's definition of "agent" from its 2016 print dictionary).

The definition was apparently updated December 12, 2021 (screenshot below). The website now states that the definition was updated on December 24th (as if though to cover their tracks).

Please share, America deserves to know.

Ryan Heath
AZ Lawyer
President & CEO

http://www.thegavelproject.com

Update 1/9/21: I am attempting to remain consistent across platforms, so I am copying and pasting from a LinkedIn comment I made about one week ago to demonstrate that intention.

Someone just brought to my attention a screenshot from the dictionary archive dating back to 2005. This photo includes the definition used by the Sixth Circuit. I’ll repeat here what I’ve said elsewhere for consistency.

The opinion refers to the dictionary immediately after saying that it must find meaning from with “in” the statute. Irrespective of this, any pertinent definition used should come from a print version of a dictionary from 1970 because a legislator from 1970 couldn’t have intended to use definitions that didn’t then exist.

I’d like to see a print version of the definition from 1970. I hope that the 1970 version includes the definition used by the court and nothing is afoot.