Sunday, July 27, 2025
Home Blog Page 322

Like a rash: Our Children’s Trust is back with another lawsuit against fossil fuel development in Alaska

Our Children’s Trust, an environmental litigation group, just lost in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar argument about climate change, kids, and fossil fuels, but is back at it with a narrower version.

Yet another group of youth, ages 11-22, have been signed up as plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving energy, the environment, climate change, and the young people’s imagined rights to their livelihoods.

On Wednesday, Our Children’s Trust filed the suit in Anchorage Superior Court that alleges an Alaska statute that promotes the development of fossil fuels absolutely infringes on young people’s rights and constitutional protections, due to the release of “greenhouse gases.”

“This is a facial challenge under Article VIII and Article I, section 7 of Alaska’s Constitution to AS § 31.25.005(1) and (5). Amidst Alaska’s worsening climate crisis, these laws unconstitutionally mandate the development and advancement of the Alaska Liquified Natural Gas Project (the “Alaska LNG Project” or the “Project”), which would substantially increase Alaska’s climate pollution for decades to come, causing existential harms to the lives, health, safety, and cultural traditions and identities of Alaska’s youth, and substantially limit their access to the vital natural resources upon which they depend,” the lawsuit reads.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment against the State of Alaska; the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, and AGDC President, Frank Richards, saying that the youth have a right to a climate system that “sustains human life, liberty, and dignity under Article VIII and Article 1, section 7 of Alaska’s Constitution.”

“Every additional ton of climate pollution causes further harm and endangerment to Alaska’s youth and brings Alaska closer to fast-approaching, irreversible climate tipping points. A substantial portion of every ton of CO2 pollution stays in the atmosphere for millennia trapping heat. Every ton of climate pollution that is avoided lessens the accumulation of heat that is trapped on Earth and therefore lessens the future harm to Youth Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit reads.

“At a time when the scientific consensus requires that climate pollution must be rapidly reduced to avert further and irreversible climate harms to Alaska’s youth, AS § 31.25.005(1) and (5) unconstitutionally direct AGDC to develop and advance the Alaska LNG Project, which would unleash vast quantities of fossil gas from Alaska’s North Slope and substantially increase Alaska’s emissions of climate pollutionThe Alaska LNG Project is intended to operate for at least thirty years and would ensure continuing and substantially elevated levels of climate pollution for decades, locking in increasing and worsening harms to Youth Plaintiffs,” the lawsuit argues.

AGDC’s commented that the Alaska LNG project will respond in court after reviewing the lawsuit.

“AGDC is directed by Alaska statute to commercialize North Slope natural gas because of the substantial environmental, economic, and energy security benefits it unlocks for our state. Alaska LNG has withstood intensive environmental scrutiny by two successive administrations because of its obvious and abundant benefits, which include reducing global emissions by up to 2.3 billion tons and finally ending longstanding air quality problems plaguing Interior Alaska villages and communities. We’ll review this claim and respond accordingly,” AGDC said in a statement.

Fossil fuels are compound mixtures made of decomposed plants that are millions of years old. It is a natural substance the earth creates and is not made of fossils but from things like algae, bacteria, and plants. It is as “organic” as burning wood for heat.

The earth has significantly cooled in the past 56 million years since the Eocene period, when palm trees grew in the region now known as Alaska and crocodiles swam arctic waters.

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor called the lawsuit “misguided” in an email to Reuters, adding that LNG development in Alaska “is subject to the most stringent environmental standards in the world.”

Taylor told Reuters he is confident the courts will uphold the law that allows the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation project to pursue building a 800-mile gasline from the North Slope to Nikiski. AGDC has been working on the project for years and through three gubernatorial administrations, now hoping to be operational by 2030.


 
 

Teresa R. Manning: States are leading the revolt against Biden’s gender ideology use of Title IX

By TERESA R. MANNING | AMERICAN GREATNESS

American federalism is alive and well after all.

On April 19, the Biden Education Department announced its disastrous new Title IX rule that guts due process and imposes gender ideology in educational institutions. Within days, however, officials from eight states publicly instructed their schools to ignore it. Then, within a week, 16 states sued the administration alongside nonprofit groups such as Parents Defending Education and several Louisiana school districts. Since then, the number of states suing has climbed to 26—more than half the states in the nation. Their court filings say the rule violates not only the United States Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedures Act but also Title IX itself. Game on!

While feminists weaponized Title IX to their hearts’ content in the Obama years, alleging a phony campus rape crisis to rationalize their kangaroo courts and to silence those questioning their power, the world is a different place under Biden. Feminists have met their match in American parents and and in red states—especially their education officials.

“In Oklahoma, we don’t bend to the senseless wheel of Biden and his posse,” declared Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction. “It’s time for every state leader to stand up and say, ‘Enough!’” South Carolina Education Superintendent Ellen Weaver obliged: “This is not fairness. It’s Fiat.” Weaver then explained the rule would force people not only to pretend that men are women—for example, in bathrooms, locker rooms and in sports, thereby ruining women’s athletics—but would also force people to use pronouns that gender activists demand, bolstering their delusions. This is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and the states are not having it.

How did we get here?

Title IX is the 1972 Congressional ban on sex discrimination in federally funded education. Schools receiving federal money agree to comply with Title IX—which is to say, they agree to not discriminate on the basis of sex. Schools can lose federal money if they are found noncompliant—a death sentence for many smaller institutions.

In 1972, the law seemed benign: Only 37 words, it was called an equal opportunity law that ensured no one would be denied educational benefits “on the basis of sex.”

But feminists get an inch and take a mile. Soon, Education Department bureaucrats stretchedTitle IX to mandate identical funding of women’s sports, regardless of female interest, decimating some men’s teams. They then expanded it to sexual harassment, the definition of which seemed to change year over year. Eventually, “sexual harassment” included any conduct, including speech, that might cause subjective offense. Suddenly, “You look nice today” became a federal offense that campus Title IX bureaucrats could investigate and expel students for. Conveniently, they’d tell their schools that such discipline was required by Title IX.

In reality, bureaucrats on campus and in DC—especially in Democrat administrations—work hand in glove to re-write federal law and then school policies, all to fit their ideological goals, not to faithfully execute the law. In DC, this is called executive overreach, where civil servants tinker with and then redefine terms, often to mean the opposite of common understanding. Thus, the new Biden rule says that the word “sex” from the original 1972 statute now means “gender ideology.”

This means that a man claiming to be a woman can now say that Title IX not only protects his fantasies but forces everyone else to go along. In fact, Biden education officials have already enforced Title IX as if this were the case, according to a 2023 investigation of California’s Taft College. This is yet more executive overreach, hopefully known to the 26 states now suing the administration.

The rule’s attack on due process is just as egregious. In the Obama administration, federal and campus bureaucrats conspired to apply Title IX to sexual misconduct as determined by one campus official who would, alone, serve as police, judge and jury in deciding who was a sex offender. This was called the “single investigator model.” But one person serving in multiple roles this way is already an obvious due process violation. The situation was the worst on campus since Title IX staff are already so heavily ideological.

According to the findings of the 2020 Report on Title IX by the National Association of Scholars, most administrators surveyed came from politicized disciplines such as Women’s Studies or Gender Studies. At the same time, they have little to no legal training or professional experience in court. This means they’re grossly unqualified to handle allegations of serious—basically criminal—offenses where due process protection is most needed.

Yet, unbelievably, the Biden rule returns to the single investigator model, which it now calls the “individual meeting method.” By whatever name, it’s a blank check to the very people who created campus kangaroo courts in the first place.

In the end, bureaucrats in DC and on campus comprise an unholy alliance ready to trash due process, ruin women’s sports, and indulge sexual fetishes to the point of violating Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights.

Obviously, Congress needs to step in here. Hearings should immediately be held to grill Biden’s Title IX Czar, Catherine Lhamon, on her misunderstanding of Title IX’s original purpose, which was, innocently enough, simply equal opportunity in education.

Lhamon’s record is already badly checkered, as she held this same position in the Obama years, when hundreds of students ended up successfully suing their schools for due process violations that her Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) invited with a highly controversial Dear Colleague Letter it enforced—even though that letter was not even law.

Congress should also immediately reduce the funding of Lhamon’s OCR and refuse to fund the enforcement of the Biden rule. It can also reject the rule under its powers in the Congressional Review Act. Additionally, one hopes that the courts will enjoin the rule from taking effect, now scheduled for August 1.

But in the absence of this much-needed Congressional oversight, the real resistance appears to be coming from outside the Beltway, where regular Americans live and where sound school and social policy have historically come from the states. Thankfully, they’re leading a happy Title IX revolt.

Teresa R. Manning is Policy Director at the National Association of Scholars, President of Virginia Association of Scholars and a former law professor at Virginia’s Scalia Law School, George Mason University.She authored the 2020 Report, Dear Colleague: The Weaponization of Title IX. This column appeared in AmGreatness.com.

Cannabis Nation: Americans’ daily use of pot now exceeds daily use of alcohol

Americans are using more cannabis on a daily basis than they consume alcohol on a daily basis, according to a new study published in the journal Addiction. And the pot they are consuming is vastly more potent than what was available 30 years ago.

In 1992, only 8 million Americans reported using marijuana within the past month, in an overall population of 250 million, about 3.2%.

By 2022, the number using pot within the past month had ballooned to 42 million out of the population of 333.3 million Americans, for a total of 12.6% of the population using pot in the past month.

The study measured daily or near-daily use of marijuana between 2008 and 2022, since the first legalization in a state occurred in 2012 (Washington and Colorado). Between 2008 and 2022, daily or near-daily use of marijuana grew by 269%, as laws prohibiting use and sales of cannabis became more prevalent.

Even more striking is the surge in daily or near-daily use when compared to the daily use of alcohol. In the mid-1990s, only about one out of eight marijuana users said they consumed the pot daily or near-daily, comparable to the roughly one in 10 alcohol users.

Today, more than 40% of marijuana users report daily or near-daily consumption, higher than those who use alcohol on a daily or near-daily basis (17.7 million vs. 14.7 million).

Chart source: Journal Addiction. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.16519

The movement toward legalization has also led to an explosion in the potency of the cannabis consumed.

Until it became legal in some states to grow and sell cannabis, the average potency rarely exceeded 5% THC, the primary psychoactive component. Back in those days, pot was coming over the border from Mexico or was being grown on outlaw farms in the United States. Today’s cannabis buds sold commercially range between 20-25% THC. Extract-based oils and dabs exceed 60% THC. Much of it is grown in controlled greenhouse environments and is being quickly changed through hybrids.

Thus, more consumers are not only using pot on a daily basis, they’re getting a lot more bang. Today’s daily users consume more than 300 milligrams of THC per day, the study shows. That level of THC is linked with onset of psychosis.

The Biden Administration plans to reschedule marijuana from a Class I to a Class III drug, which puts it in the category of ketamine, testosterone, and anabolic steroids. As of February, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized cannabis for recreational or medical use.

RNC headquarters evacuated after biological attack

Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley said the organization stands “firm in our mission,” to deliver greater freedom and opportunity, no matter the terroristic tactics some may use against the party.

He made the statement after an evacuation of the RNC headquarters in Washington, DC, due to someone sending two vials of blood to the building.

“Today, vials of blood were sent to RNC Headquarters in DC. We are thankful to law enforcement, who responded quickly and ensured everyone’s safety. The lockdown has been cleared and staff has resumed their office duties because we remain unintimidated and undeterred in our efforts to elect President Trump to the White House,” Whatley said in the statement.
 
“This revolting attack comes on the heels of pro-Hamas protestors violently demonstrating on college campuses and deranged Biden supporters physically attacking our campaign volunteers for supporting President Trump,” Whatley said.
 
“While Republicans fight to strengthen our economy, secure our southern border, and halt the violent crime in our communities, the fringe-left is wreaking havoc, sowing fear, and lying to the public in a bad-faith effort to divide Americans and sway an election. No matter what violent tactics Biden’s extreme left supporters try next, we stand firm in our mission to deliver greater freedom and opportunity for all Americans, and we won’t back down.”

In January of 2021, a pipe bomb was found planted at the RNC headquarters and was destroyed by law enforcement. Another pipe bomb was placed at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at around the same time.

Win Gruening: Smearing Juneau school board members and superintendent is vindictive

By WIN GRUENING

A school consolidation plan announced by the Juneau School District (JSD) has drawn fire from a dissident group calling themselves Community Advocates for Responsible Education (CARE). They are sponsoring petitions to recall two JSD Board members and mounting a full-blown campaign blitz urging the board to reverse its decision to merge Juneau’s two high schools.

Some may applaud their activism, but, in resorting to an expensive special recall election and character assassination, CARE is anything but responsible or caring.

Declining enrollment in Juneau and some school districts in Alaska (Matsu is a notable exception) isn’t unique. It’s being mirrored nationally, mostly in urban areas where student populations have plummeted and are expected to continue to fall.

A recent Wall Street Journal article about what Los Angeles schools are facing, and many other school districts across the country, illustrates a difficult-to-sustain dynamic: too many schools for too few students. Los Angeles is down to 413,800 students across 800 schools, from nearly 750,000 students in 2003.

A recent article in The Seattle Times discusses how school officials there could eventually close more than a quarter of the district’s nearly 70 elementary schools. 

The irony facing administrators and school board officials is that as per-pupil costs continue to rise at under-populated schools, the quality of education, breadth of curriculum, and resources at those schools diminish.

Merging schools has the opposite effect. Per-pupil costs go down while programs and resources expand.

That some parents and students might focus on other aspects of school consolidations such as longer commutes, different teachers, and unfamiliar surroundings is understandable. Change is always hard and it’s a natural and emotional reaction.

But the positive aspects shouldn’t be overlooked.

More importantly, delaying needed consolidation ignores the district’s structural deficit, further strains school budgets, and prolongs necessary acceptance by parents, students, and teachers of what eventually must happen. 

JSD demographic studies confirm an additional 1,200 student loss in Juneau is expected within the next 10 years.

CARE’s brochure being distributed at petition-signing events misrepresents the process and the facts behind the JSD board’s consolidation decision. Irrelevant assertions designed to provoke emotional reactions are featured including the economic impact of students’ Valley shopping, availability of student parking, and playing sports in a different athletic league, none of which determine educational outcomes.

The contention that Juneau’s public process was flawed is belied by the facts. JSD held dozens of public meetings. Input was solicited through multiple community and staff engagement meetings and a JSD Budget Survey. A budget newsletter supplementing public announcements was featured on the district web page and social media. Superintendent Hauser was available at all public meetings to answer questions.

In a letter to the Assembly, Juneau Empire, and School Board, CARE claims they want their issues “addressed as a form of goodwill to begin rebuilding a climate of trust and cooperation between the community and the Board.”

But blaming current school board members for poor decision-making by past boards and administrators is neither fair nor responsible. Mounting a petition drive to recall them is petty, spiteful, and only sows further division and distrust.

Most recently, a CARE group leader, in an Empire My Turn, attempted to vilify JSD Superintendent Frank Hauser by claiming he “ has shown no respect, compassion, or courtesy to staff, students, or parents”, implying that ”another agenda [was] at play”, and finally, the district was ”being dismantled by a superintendent whose primary residence is listed in Anchorage.”

None of that is true. It certainly won’t foster the “trust and cooperation” CARE professes to desire given that respect is a two-way street.

It took many years for JSD to reach the point where the board was forced to act. Not everyone will agree with the consolidation model that was chosen. However, it preserved the most programs and ensured the district a solid financial footing going forward.

Signing petitions to recall school board members and spending over $100,000 of taxpayer dollars for a pointless recall election isn’t a solution.

Nor is smearing people’s reputations and misrepresenting the facts. In doing so, CARE has forfeited any legitimacy and credibility it may have had.

After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.

Nick Begich: It’s Peltola vs. Alaska on ANWR and NPRA

By NICK BEGICH

Opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska — if there is one issue Alaskans agree on, this is it.

In poll after poll, an overwhelming majority of Alaskans – nearly 80% – say they support opening more of Alaska’s North Slope. Ted Stevens, Don Young, Frank Murkowski, and every governor of Alaska in recent memory –- all have gone on record supporting exploration and development of ANWR. It’s hard to think of an Alaskan issue that would have stronger bipartisan support. 

Alaskans support it because we see it as a necessary next step in the development of our resources and the strengthening of our economy, only for it to be blocked by Outside environmental activists and the national Democrats who are beholden to them. 

Alaskans realize that these Outside interests want to lock Alaska up and prevent us from having a prosperous future. We need representation who will stand for us, not stand with those who would block our potential. 

But for Mary Peltola, this is apparently optional. We saw that clearly earlier this month when the question of opening ANWR and NPR-A came to the House floor in the form of the “Alaska’s Right to Produce Act.”

You may remember that when President Trump’s tax cuts passed Congress, they included provisions for lease sales in ANWR -– a stunning victory for Alaska resource development and the culmination of decades of work by our congressional delegation. But on his first day in office, President Joe Biden issued sweeping executive actions that suspended the ANWR leases and closed ANWR to further development. In what would become a pattern, Biden continued a relentless campaign against Alaskan development; the count of his unilateral actions locking up Alaska is now up to 63. 

The Alaska’s Right to Produce Act rejects Biden’s closure of ANWR and would restart lease sales. One would think that our lone member of Congress would be an easy “yes” vote – and indeed, Peltola co-sponsored it when it was introduced last year. 

But Mary Peltola first urged her colleagues to vote against it, voted to kill the bill, then voted “present” on it. Since only “yes” votes count toward passage, a “present” vote has the same effect as a “no” vote. 

Why the flip-flop? She claims that there is a poison pill in the bill that somehow pits ANWR development against fish. The provision she cites doesn’t actually do that -– and it was in the bill when she co-sponsored it. When it was just a bipartisan bill with a catchy title, she co-sponsored it, with not a poison pill to be found. 

But now that she’s in a serious fight for re-election, and needs support from Outside environmental interests, suddenly the bill doesn’t pass muster. 

She’s scrambling to cover her actions, but one thing is clear: when Alaskan development is truly on the line, Mary doesn’t stand with us. In the battle between partisan politics and doing what’s right for Alaska, Mary Peltola has chosen the wrong side. 

Peltola claims to be carrying the mantle of the late Congressman Don Young. But it is impossible to imagine Don Young voting “present” on a bill to open ANWR for exploration and drilling, a goal he promoted tirelessly for decades. 

The “Alaska’s Right to Produce Act” did pass the U.S. House, and the vote was bipartisan. Five Democrats voted to open Alaska for resource development. If only Mary Peltola had been one of them. 

If I’m elected to serve as your representative, my commitment is clear. I will advocate tirelessly for ANWR’s development, ensuring that Alaska remains at the forefront of America’s energy future. I will stand against those who seek to lock up our resources, denying us the prosperity that is rightfully ours.

I will be the voice in Congress that says “Yes” to Alaskan development, “Yes” to our economic future, and “Yes” to the enduring spirit of our great state. 

Nick Begich is the leading Republican candidate for Alaska’s at-large seat in the U. S. Congress. To find out more about Nick, visit his campaign website. 

Breaking: Nikki Haley says she is voting for Trump. Here’s why.

After speaking to a group at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., former presidential candidate Nikki Haley said she will vote for Donald Trump for president.

The former U.N. Ambassador for Trump and former South Carolina governor dropped from the GOP presidential slate after Super Tuesday in March, having run a campaign that was highly critical of Trump.

But on Wednesday, she said that even though Trump “has not been perfect on these policies [holding enemies to account and securing the border], I’ve made that clear many, many times,” President Joe Biden “has been a catastrophe.

“Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me and continue to support me, and not assume that they’re just going to be with him. And I genuinely hope he does that,” she said.

Many Haley supporters are moderate Republicans or “never-Trumpers.”

Meet Mark Frohnmayer on Must Read Alaska Show as he talks up a new voting system called STAR

By JOHN QUICK

In this episode of the Must Read Alaska Show, host John Quick sits down with Mark Frohnmayer, who is a software and electric vehicle entrepreneur, as well as a pioneering advocate for electoral reform.

Mark shares his fascinating journey from being in the game development industry to sustainable transportation entrepreneurship and election science. With a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from University of California Berkeley, Mark’s innovative spirit has led him to create solutions across various fields.

We delve into Mark’s background, exploring some of his favorite memories and milestones, including his time as the lead programmer of popular games like Starsiege: Tribes and Tribes 2, and his pivotal role in founding the electric vehicle company, Arcimoto. Mark provides insights into the challenges and triumphs of launching a sustainable transportation startup and his experiences serving on the Oregon Transportation Commission.

The conversation takes a deep dive into electoral reform as Mark discusses the inception of the Equal Vote Coalition and the creation of the STAR voting system.

He explains why he believes STAR voting is far superior to the rank-choice voting system, emphasizing its core criteria of Equality, Honesty, Accuracy, Expressiveness, and Simplicity.

Here’s how STAR voting works:

  • – Voters score each candidate on a scale of zero to five.
  • – The candidate you like the most is the one you score highest.
  • – The two candidates who receive the most of the highest scores become finalists and enter an automatic runoff.
  • – During the automatic runoff, a ballot counts as one vote for the finalists that the voter scored higher.

STAR voting was recently given to voters as an option to use in the future. On the ballot in Eugene, Ore. this month, it was rejected. It is criticized by those the big players who promote ranked-choice voting and is viewed by them as unwelcome competition with RCV. Learn more about STAR voting at this link.

While host John Quick remains critical of both STAR and ranked-choice voting systems, Quick recognizes the importance of having a dialogue with those who have different views.

Tune in for an enlightening and thought-provoking discussion with Mark Frohnmayer, as we explore the intersections of technology, entrepreneurship, and the quest for a more informed electoral process.

Whether you’re interested in gaming, electric vehicles, or election reform, this episode offers something for you.

The Must Read Alaska Show, Alaska’s No. 1 podcast, is found at any podcasting platform that you may use, or check it out here at Podbean.

Biden rule allows union reps to inspect job sites

By CASEY HARPER | THE CENTER SQUARE

Business groups are pushing back against a new Biden administration rule that would allow third-parties, including union representatives, to accompany federal inspectors of job sites.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the final rule earlier this year, but critics say the rule goes beyond safety needs and panders to unions and their recruitment efforts. The rule would apply even to job sites where workers have not unionized.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, are helping lead the charge against the new “walkaround” rule, which takes effect May 31 of this year.

“Small businesses want to create a safe work environment for their employees, and they understand the necessity of reasonable mandates and inspections to this end,” Beth Milito, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center, said in a statement. “But the final rule issued by OSHA goes beyond ‘reasonable’. This rule will allow unlimited third-party individuals to initiate and then join an inspection of a private workplace under the guise of representing the employees. Not only does this violate a small business owner’s private property rights, it will not advance worker safety. It only makes small businesses susceptible to harassment from competitors, union representatives, and other parties intending to cause harm.”

President Joe Biden has called himself the most pro-union president in history and has taken several actions to bolster union membership and recruiting efforts, often at taxpayer expense.

Those actions have been welcomed by unions and criticized by others, who point out that taxpayers fund these efforts to benefit unions, who mostly give political donations to Democrats.

OSHA has argued that the rule is consistent with past OSHA practices and will help make inspections more thorough.

“The rule is in part a response to a 2017 court decision ruling that the agency’s existing regulation, 29 CFR 1903.8(c), only permitted employees of the employer to be authorized as representatives,” the agency said in a news release earlier this year. “However, the court acknowledged that the OSH Act does not limit who can serve as an employee representative and that OSHA’s historic practice was a “persuasive and valid construction” of the OSH Act. Today’s final rule is the culmination of notice and comment rulemaking that clarifies OSHA’s inspection regulation and aligns with OSHA’s longstanding construction of the act.”

A coalition of business groups filed a lawsuit challenging the rule on Tuesday. The legal filing argues that the rule violates business owners private property rights and asked that its enforcement be delayed or vacated altogether.

“OSHA upended over 50 years of precedent by dramatically expanding the type of third parties allowed to accompany inspectors during walkarounds,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in its announcement of the lawsuit.

The chamber also pointed to a news release where the American Federation of Government Employees suggested that the new rule would help unions organize in new territories.

“OSHA’s new walkaround rule is the Administration’s latest regulation to take a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to promoting unionization at all costs,” Marc Freedman, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Employment Policy Division, said in a statement. “OSHA claims this rule is about workplace safety, but as some union organizers have publicly admitted, this rule is about gaining access to nonunionized workplaces to advance their organizing campaigns.”