Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Marshall, Secretary Of Labor, Et Al. v. Barlow's, Inc.

• 1977 • 436 U.S. 307 • Burger Court
In the case of Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Barlow's Inc., 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that warrantless Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections violated the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case arose when an OSHA inspector attempted to conduct a routine inspection at Barlow's electrical and plumbing installation business in Pocatello, Idaho without a search warrant or any specific evidence of an existing...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1977
Docket: 76-1143
436 U.S. 307
98 S. Ct. 1816
56 L. Ed. 2d 305
1978 U.S. LEXIS 26
Argued: Jan 09, 1978

Marshall, Secretary Of Labor, Et Al. v. Barlow's, Inc.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Barlow's Inc., 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that warrantless Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections violated the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case arose when an OSHA inspector attempted to conduct a routine inspection at Barlow's electrical and plumbing installation business in Pocatello, Idaho without a search warrant or any specific evidence of an existing violation. When Mr. Ferrol G. "Bill" Barlow refused entry due to lack of a search warrant, he was subsequently cited by OSHA for denying the inspection under section 8(a) of Occupational Safety and Health Act which allowed for such inspections without warrants or consent from employers.The court held that administrative agencies like OSHA must obtain either consent or an administrative search warrant before conducting workplace safety inspections.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Barlow's Inc., Justice White argued that warrantless inspections were necessary to enforce Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations effectively. He contended that requiring warrants would significantly impede OSHA’s ability to conduct surprise inspections and prevent employers from concealing or correcting violations before inspectors arrive. Furthermore, he pointed out that many other industries are subject to similar administrative searches without a warrant requirement due to their long history of government oversight or because they engage in businesses affecting public health or safety - such as liquor establishments or firearm dealerships - thus making it inconsistent not allowing the same for OSHA inspections. Lastly, he emphasized that if an employer refuses entry, obtaining a warrant could be time-consuming and burdensome which might further delay the inspection process thereby undermining its effectiveness.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: May 23, 1978
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms