{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "fingerprint": "ewai:se:5aa9a2", "proof": "sha256:2976cde557bc2eccd9f48f46b6217ef6f1782e191655eade65f5944a00c7520c", "jurisdiction": "se", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor", "contact": "stig@valkiv.com" }, "sections": [ { "title": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "File Name: 26a0269p.06", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY", "paragraphs": [ "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction", "paragraphs": [ "para_26", "para_27" ] }, { "title": "Decided and Filed: September 23, 2026", "paragraphs": [ "para_29", "para_30" ] }, { "title": "COUNSEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ON MOTION TO DISMISS: Susannah M. Maltz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON RESPONSE: Joseph S. Diedrich, HUSCH", "paragraphs": [ "para_34", "para_35" ] }, { "title": "ORDER", "paragraphs": [ "para_37" ] }, { "title": "Cargill, Inc., owner of a salt mine in Cleveland, seeks review of an order issued by the", "paragraphs": [ "para_39", "para_40", "para_41" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 2", "paragraphs": [ "para_43", "para_44" ] }, { "title": "Hidden beneath Cleveland is a massive mine where Cargill employees harvest road salt", "paragraphs": [ "para_46", "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "The Mine Safety and Health Act requires all operators to maintain “at least two separate", "paragraphs": [ "para_50" ] }, { "title": "30 U.S.C. § 877(f)(1); see 30 C.F.R. § 57.11051. Nitrogen dioxide is noxious, and elevated", "paragraphs": [ "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "46 F.M.S.H.R.C. 667, 671 (2024). The Secretary deems a passageway unsafe when nitrogen", "paragraphs": [ "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63" ] }, { "title": "The Secretary petitioned for review before the Commission. The Commission concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66" ] }, { "title": "48 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 100–01. It remanded the matter to the administrative law judge with", "paragraphs": [ "para_68", "para_69" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 3", "paragraphs": [ "para_71", "para_72" ] }, { "title": "Unless Congress specifically tells us otherwise, we may review administrative decisions", "paragraphs": [ "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "733 F.3d 658, 659 (6th Cir. 2013). Some interlocutory orders, moreover, threaten at most a", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85" ] }, { "title": "Congress thus sensibly polices interlocutory review, such as by creating a rule that only", "paragraphs": [ "para_87", "para_88" ] }, { "title": "For similar reasons and consistent with Bell, we presume that Congress requires a final", "paragraphs": [ "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97" ] }, { "title": "A background presumption of required finality is a presumption, however, not a", "paragraphs": [ "para_99" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 4", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102", "para_103" ] }, { "title": "In this instance, Congress did not rebut the presumption of finality when it enacted the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Mine Safety and Health Act and authorized review of the agency’s decisions. The relevant", "paragraphs": [ "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111" ] }, { "title": "Metro. Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 383–84 (1938). Lower courts, including ours, have", "paragraphs": [ "para_113", "para_114" ] }, { "title": "Cir. 2014); Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 614 F.2d 1121, 1126–27", "paragraphs": [ "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126" ] }, { "title": "134, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 419 U.S. 428, 443–44 (1975). Where Congress", "paragraphs": [ "para_128", "para_129" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 5", "paragraphs": [ "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134" ] }, { "title": "All of this explains why every circuit to consider this issue has concluded that the Act", "paragraphs": [ "para_136", "para_137" ] }, { "title": "Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 920 F.2d 738, 743–44 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam);", "paragraphs": [ "para_139" ] }, { "title": "To all of this, Cargill has two responses. The first is to point to an express finality", "paragraphs": [ "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149" ] }, { "title": "Even reading §§ 816(a)(1) and 816(b) in tandem, Congress did not clearly show that it", "paragraphs": [ "para_151", "para_152" ] }, { "title": "30 U.S.C. § 816(b) (emphasis added). “Also” means likewise. Also, Webster’s New Collegiate", "paragraphs": [ "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 6", "paragraphs": [ "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164" ] }, { "title": "Cargill’s second response is to argue that, even if § 816(a)(1) requires finality, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Commission’s remand order satisfies the requirement. We disagree. Finality has two", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172" ] }, { "title": "153, 156 (6th Cir. 1989). The Commission determined that Cargill broke the law, but", "paragraphs": [ "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178" ] }, { "title": "Even so, Cargill insists, the Commission’s order resolves the “core” issue of the case—", "paragraphs": [ "para_180", "para_181" ] }, { "title": "See Mach Mining, LLC v. Sec’y of Lab., 809 F.3d 1259, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (conceding", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 7", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk", "paragraphs": [] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "File Name: 26a0269p.06", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CARGILL, INC.,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Petitioner,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Respondent.", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "┐", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "│", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "┘", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "On Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Nos. LAKE 2022-0285; LAKE 2023-0013.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Decided and Filed: September 23, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge, CLAY and BUSH, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "COUNSEL", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "ON MOTION TO DISMISS: Susannah M. Maltz, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON RESPONSE: Joseph S. Diedrich, HUSCH", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "BLACKWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "ORDER", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "_________________", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Cargill, Inc., owner of a salt mine in Cleveland, seeks review of an order issued by the", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission that reversed an administrative law judge’s", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": ">", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 2", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "and Health Administration moves to dismiss the petition given the absence of a final order.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Because the Commission’s order is not a final one, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Hidden beneath Cleveland is a massive mine where Cargill employees harvest road salt", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "by blasting the rock face with explosives. The miners send debris on a conveyor belt to an", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "underground mill to be crushed and hoisted to the surface. Along with salt, blasting also", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "produces nitrogen dioxide.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "The Mine Safety and Health Act requires all operators to maintain “at least two separate", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "and distinct travelable passageways” in “safe condition” for use as “escapeways.”", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "30 U.S.C. § 877(f)(1); see 30 C.F.R. § 57.11051. Nitrogen dioxide is noxious, and elevated", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "levels make passageways unsafe. Sec’y of Lab. v. Cargill, Inc., 48 F.M.S.H.R.C. 100,", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "101 (2026). In July 2022, an inspector from the Mine Safety and Health Administration tested", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "an area in the Cleveland Mine that Cargill designated as an escapeway and found nitrogen", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "dioxide concentrations up to 10.3 parts per million. See Cargill, Inc. v. Sec’y of Lab.,", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "46 F.M.S.H.R.C. 667, 671 (2024). The Secretary deems a passageway unsafe when nitrogen", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "dioxide levels exceed five parts per million, prompting the inspector to cite Cargill for a", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "“significant and substantial” violation. Cargill, 48 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 100.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "Cargill contested the violation before an administrative law judge. See Cargill,", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "46 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 668. Finding that nitrogen dioxide levels below 15 parts per million would", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "not impair a miner’s ability to escape, the judge vacated the citation. Id. at 705–09. He also", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "found that Cargill lacked sufficient notice of the Secretary’s interpretation that five parts per", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "million was the threshold for safety. Id. at 708 n.32.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "The Secretary petitioned for review before the Commission. The Commission concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "that Cargill “should have been aware that exceeding the 5-ppm limit for NO2 would render the", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "secondary escapeway unsafe in violation of section 57.11051(a)” and reversed. Cargill,", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "48 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 100–01. It remanded the matter to the administrative law judge with", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "instructions to “determine the appropriate penalty amount after resolving any outstanding issues,", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "such as the ‘significant and substantial’ nature of the violation.” Id. at 107. Rather than wait for", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 3", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "the judge to do so, Cargill petitioned for review. The Secretary moves to dismiss the petition as", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "premature.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Unless Congress specifically tells us otherwise, we may review administrative decisions", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "only after the agency process results in a final order. “The strong presumption,” the Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Court has explained, “is that judicial review will be available only when agency action becomes", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "final.” Bell v. New Jersey, 461 U.S. 773, 778 (1983). This is not a new idea, whether with", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "respect to agency decisions or run-of-the-mine district court decisions. “[E]ver since the first", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Judiciary Act, Congress has been loathe to authorize review of interim steps in a proceeding.”", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 131 (1939). Its hesitance is part procedural", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "philosophy and part constitutional necessity. A finality requirement “guards against piecemeal", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "appeals” and protects judicial resources. Page Plus of Atlanta, Inc. v. Owl Wireless, LLC,", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "733 F.3d 658, 659 (6th Cir. 2013). Some interlocutory orders, moreover, threaten at most a", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "contingent future injury, making them potentially unripe under Article III. See, e.g., United", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "States v. L.A. & Salt Lake R.R. Co., 273 U.S. 299, 309–10 (1927) (“so-called order” was not an", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "appealable order under the Urgent Deficiencies Act because there was no case or controversy).", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "Congress thus sensibly polices interlocutory review, such as by creating a rule that only", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "final district court judgments may be appealed, subject to limited exceptions. See 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "§§ 1291–92.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "For similar reasons and consistent with Bell, we presume that Congress requires a final", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "agency decision before a petitioner may seek review of an administrator’s action in the federal", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "courts. This background principle allows the agency to develop a factual background and apply", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "a statute free from the “premature interruption of the administrative process.” McKart v. United", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "States, 395 U.S. 185, 193–94 (1969). When the agency has finished its work and any concrete", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "and particularized injury has materialized, federal judges enter the picture, checking the agency’s", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "work by interpreting the statute afresh. In creating this division of labor, Congress commits", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "agencies and judges to their proper spheres of authority. See Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich,", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "510 U.S. 200, 214–15 (1994).", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "A background presumption of required finality is a presumption, however, not a", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "conclusive requirement. That means Congress may rebut the presumption with “language or", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 4", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "structure” that “demonstrates” it intended to allow for the appeal of an interlocutory agency", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "order. Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 575 U.S. 480, 486 (2015) (explaining how Congress can", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "rebut the similarly strong presumption in favor of judicial review of final agency action).", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "In this instance, Congress did not rebut the presumption of finality when it enacted the", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "Mine Safety and Health Act and authorized review of the agency’s decisions. The relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "statute gives us authority to review an appeal of “[a]ny person adversely affected or aggrieved by", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "an order of the Commission.” 30 U.S.C. § 816(a)(1). Mere permission to review “an order” by", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "the agency does not alter the background imperative of finality. The Supreme Court long ago", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "rejected an argument that a remand order was reviewable under the Federal Power Act’s", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "authorization of appeals from administrative “orders,” construing the statute to extend only “to", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "orders of a definitive character,” not mere “interlocutory directions.” Fed. Power Comm’n v.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "Metro. Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 383–84 (1938). Lower courts, including ours, have", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "consistently determined that Congress’s permission to seek review of administrative “orders”", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "does not abrogate the finality requirement. See, e.g., Burdue v. FAA, 774 F.3d 1076, 1080 (6th", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Cir. 2014); Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 614 F.2d 1121, 1126–27", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 1980).", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "Statutory text must be read in context, and “[s]ometimes context indicates that a technical", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "meaning applies.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law 73 (2012). The relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "context here is that an administrative agency issued the order. “Administrative order” has a", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "special meaning, namely the “final disposition of a matter before an administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "agency.” Administrative order, Black’s Law Dictionary 43 (5th ed. 1979). The Administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "Procedure Act, too, incorporates a finality component, defining an order as “the whole or a part", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "of a final disposition . . . of an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(6); see Cytori Therapeutics, Inc. v. FDA,", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "715 F.3d 922, 926 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Kavanaugh, J.) (treating as conclusive this definition absent", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "a separate statutory definition). The Supreme Court has confirmed that an intermediate", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "proceeding within an agency is not “a part of a final disposition.” Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. Loc.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "134, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 419 U.S. 428, 443–44 (1975). Where Congress", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "“borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning” of the", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "administrative state’s entire existence, “it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 5", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "were attached to each borrowed word.” Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025) (quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "omitted). “[P]ost-APA statutes” like the Act, no surprise, thus “typically incorporate the", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "APA’s concepts and distinctions.” New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n,", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "742 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1984) (Breyer, J.).", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "All of this explains why every circuit to consider this issue has concluded that the Act", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "does not rebut Bell’s strong finality presumption. See Monterey Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Safety", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "& Health Rev. Comm’n, 635 F.2d 291, 292–93 (4th Cir. 1980); Jim Walter Res., Inc. v. Fed.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 920 F.2d 738, 743–44 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam);", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Meredith v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 177 F.3d 1042, 1047–48 (D.C. Cir. 1999).", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "To all of this, Cargill has two responses. The first is to point to an express finality", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "requirement in § 816(b) when the Secretary files an appeal. Noting that Congress knows how to", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "impose a finality requirement when it wishes to and noting that no such word appears in", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "§ 816(a)(1) when other parties seek review, it argues that Congress must have meant to allow", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "review of interlocutory orders like this one. That is a fair point and might suffice in an ordinary", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "case. But “the force of any negative implication . . . depends on context.” Rutherford v. United", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1332 (2026) (alteration in original). Today’s context comes with a", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "strong presumption of finality across all administrative review provisions. The mere use of", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "“final” elsewhere in the same statute does not suffice to alter the customary reading of “order” in", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "administrative-review provisions.", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Even reading §§ 816(a)(1) and 816(b) in tandem, Congress did not clearly show that it", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "wanted to grant different appellate privileges to the regulators and to the regulated. Section", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "816(b) begins by saying that the Secretary “may also obtain review” of Commission orders.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "30 U.S.C. § 816(b) (emphasis added). “Also” means likewise. Also, Webster’s New Collegiate", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Dictionary 33 (8th ed. 1979); see Also, Black’s Law Dictionary 71 (5th ed. 1979) (the two words", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "have “nearly the same” meaning). These words signal continuity with what precedes them, not a", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "significant departure from it. If Congress meant to give the Secretary a much narrower route to", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "federal review, “also” would have been an unusual way to indicate that intention. The better", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "reading is that Congress wanted to specify the Secretary as an additional holder of the review", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "right, not to impose a materially different condition on that right. The end of the sentence", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 6", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "reinforces this point: “[T]he provisions of subsection (a) shall govern such proceedings to the", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "extent applicable.” 30 U.S.C. § 816(b). Congress expressly incorporated subsection (a) because", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "it viewed the two subsections as doing together what judicial review provisions almost always", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "do: vesting the government and industry with reciprocal access to the federal courts.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "Cargill’s second response is to argue that, even if § 816(a)(1) requires finality, the", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "Commission’s remand order satisfies the requirement. We disagree. Finality has two", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "conditions: “First, the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "process . . . [and] must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature. And second, the", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997) (quotations and", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "citations omitted). We have long recognized that orders remanding for further administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "proceedings do not satisfy these requirements. See, e.g., Canada Coal Co. v. Stiltner, 866 F.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "153, 156 (6th Cir. 1989). The Commission determined that Cargill broke the law, but", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "substantive questions remain to be adjudicated. It directed the administrative law judge to", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "resolve these outstanding issues, including the “significant and substantial” nature of the", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "violation. That determination is no trifle. A significant and substantial finding brings heightened", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "punishments for a subsequent violation. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 814(d)(1), 814(e). And it would help", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "inform the consequences of this one, say by determining what penalty Cargill owes. Id. § 820.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "Even so, Cargill insists, the Commission’s order resolves the “core” issue of the case—", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "the violation of the safe passageways rule. But cores have peripheries, such as the size of any", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "penalty. Cargill will be entitled to ask for our review of that ruling, peripheral though it may be.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "See Mach Mining, LLC v. Sec’y of Lab., 809 F.3d 1259, 1263 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (conceding", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "liability but challenging a significant and substantial finding). What Cargill really wants is", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "permission to bring a piecemeal appeal. Yet that’s just what the finality requirement prevents. It", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "bears adding that, while collateral orders are sometimes excepted from the final order", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "requirement, see Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949), Cargill does", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "not argue that this exception applies.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "No. 26-3287 Cargill, Inc. v. MSHR et al. Page 7", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk", "paragraph_id": "para_191" } ], "word_count": 2212, "cites": [ "461 U.S. 773", "307 U.S. 125", "273 U.S. 299", "395 U.S. 185", "510 U.S. 200", "575 U.S. 480", "304 U.S. 375", "419 U.S. 428", "604 U.S. 192", "520 U.S. 154", "337 U.S. 541", "733 F.3d 658", "774 F.3d 1076", "614 F.2d 1121", "715 F.3d 922", "742 F.2d 1", "635 F.2d 291", "920 F.2d 738", "177 F.3d 1042", "866 F.2d\n153", "809 F.3d 1259" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "e4ffbaa4cdd3d42630389809c121652157964344bef11db9ee7be321ca0481d2", "source_url": "http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0269p-06.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-01T15:40:22.945+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "e4ffbaa4cdd3d42630389809c121652157964344bef11db9ee7be321ca0481d2", "recomputed_sha256": "e4ffbaa4cdd3d42630389809c121652157964344bef11db9ee7be321ca0481d2", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-05T15:33:42.935Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:2976cde557bc2eccd9f48f46b6217ef6f1782e191655eade65f5944a00c7520c", "version": "legal-2026-10-05", "expires": "2026-10-06T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-05+legal-2026-10-05+2026-10-05T15:24:01", "content_hash": "sha256:2976cde557bc2eccd9f48f46b6217ef6f1782e191655eade65f5944a00c7520c", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-05T16:33:43.103Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-26-3287-2026-09-23", "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }