Whether the United States Court of Appeals correctly applied the substantial-evidence-standard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal agencies, including the Occupational and Safety Health Administration (“OSHA”), exist and are limited by the authority delegated to them by Congress. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 577 (1992) (quoting Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 309-310 (1944)). When agencies engage in actions that overreach their Congressionally delegated powers and infringe on individual rights, Congress has empowered the courts to determine the lawfulness of the agency’s actions. Id. “Whether on the record as a whole there is substantial evidence to support agency findings is a question which Congress has placed in the keeping of the Courts of Appeals.” Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 491 (1951). Accordingly, this Court has established clear precedent delineating courts of appeals’ review of an administrative law judge’s factual finding as requiring meaningful review of the record evidence as a whole. A fundamental requirement of Fifth Amendment due process rights is the opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. Furthermore, because the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission hearings, an administrative law judge has the power to “exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals correctly applied the substantial evidence standard as articulated by this Court’s prior precedent. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued 2. Whether the United States Court of Appeals correctly applied Auer deference pursuant to the analysis set out by this Court in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019). 3. Whether the admission of a prior out-of-court statement of a non-managerial employee, which constituted the sole evidence in support of an Occupational Safety and Health Administration citation in an administrative adjudication, is a violation of an employer’s due process rights or was reversible error under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.