In the case of Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Labor (DOL). The dispute arose when an explosion on a drilling barge killed four employees and injured two others. The DOL's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sought to enforce safety regulations against Mallard Bay Drilling but was challenged by the company who argued that OSHA lacked jurisdiction over oil drilling barges as they fell under Coast Guard authority instead. However, since no specific Coast Guard regulation applied to this particular situation, it left a regulatory gap which OSHA could fill according to its mandate for general industry standards application where no other federal agency has exercised statutory authority over working conditions involved in an incident.

In the dissenting opinion for Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., Justice Thomas argued that the majority misinterpreted the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) by allowing it to apply to non-maritime activities on navigable waters. He contended that Congress intended OSHA's jurisdiction over working conditions not addressed by other federal laws only when those conditions affect commerce among states or with foreign nations. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), according to him, already covers safety standards for oil drilling operations in navigable waters; therefore, applying OSHA would be redundant and contrary to Congressional intent. Furthermore, he asserted that this broad interpretation could lead to an unwarranted expansion of federal power into areas traditionally regulated by states.