A federal appellate court upheld the dismissal of South Carolina’s challenge to a 2016 rule issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Case: McMaster v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 25-1986, 06/24/2026, published.

Facts: The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires the U.S. Department of Labor to administer occupational health and safety standards, but it allows states to establish their own plans, subject to OSHA approval.

In July 2016, a new rule required OSHA to annually adjust its penalties to keep up with inflation. The rule said state plans have to adjust their penalties to keep pace with OSHA.

South Carolina has administered and enforced its own health and safety standards for decades. When OSHA raised its monetary penalties in 2016, South Carolina did not match the increase.

In the four years that followed, OSHA did not issue formal findings of noncompliance for South Carolina or any other state plans that failed to raise monetary penalties. 

It was not until 2022 that OSHA issued a formal finding that South Carolina had failed to comply with federal regulations.

Procedural history: Representatives of South Carolina filed suit against the U.S. Department of Labor in 2022. The plaintiffs challenged only OSHA’s 2022 inflation adjustment, not its 2016 rule.

A federal district court found that the 2022 adjustment was not a final agency action and not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Representatives of South Carolina filed a second suit against the DOL in 2023, challenging OSHA’s 2016 interim final rule. 

The DOL and OSHA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that two of the eight counts were untimely because they were brought outside the APA’s six-year statute of limitations.

A federal district court found that the claims were untimely and dismissed them.

Analysis: The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected South Carolina’s argument that OSHA’s pattern of “sustained nonenforcement” caused its injury to “disappear,” such that it would not have had standing to challenge OSHA’s 2016 rule until the agency presented a “credible threat” of enforcement in 2022.

Under the plain text of the statute of limitations, an APA claim is barred “unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues,” the court said. “A claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court — and in the case of the APA, that is when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.”

Since South Carolina could have brought suit in 2016 challenging the interim final rule, it was required to bring its suit by 2022, the court said.

The court cautioned that ruling against South Carolina on this issue does not prevent it from raising its substantive claims as a defense against any enforcement action, though. If an enforcement proceeding occurs, the court said, South Carolina can argue in that context that OSHA has exceeded its authority with the 2016 rule.

Disposition: Affirmed.

To read the court’s decision, click here.