Today, at a time when gas prices and oil company profits are record highs, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken $2 billion from 32,000 Americans who lost their livelihood in the worst oil spill in U.S history... and given it back to Exxon.
The Court's reduction of punitive damages in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker is a nakedly activist decision that pulls its standard for limiting damages out of thin air, demonstrates hostility to the role of Congress, and continues a pattern of ignoring the Framers' views on the importance of civil juries. Progressives would do well to treat this decision with resounding scorn, and highlight it as a textbook example of why the Supreme Court matters.
The case arose from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, wherein Exxon allowed Joseph Hazelwood, a relapsed alcoholic, drunk at the time, to the helm of a massive oil tanker navigating the treacherous waters of Alaska's Prince William Sound at night. The ship ran into a reef, ruptured and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil, devastating the Sound's fragile and pristine ecosystem. Grant Baker is one of 32,000 commercial fishermen and Alaska Natives that sued Exxon for their economic losses and for punitive damages against Exxon.
More than 6,000 of these victims have died during the course of this litigation, which Exxon has tenaciously prolonged for 16 years with appeal after appeal. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cut what was originally a $5 billion jury verdict down to $2.5 billion. Today, the Court cut this again for Exxon to a maximum of $500 million.
The Court's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Souter and Kennedy (Justice Alito was recused) reads like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The Court crafts a 1:1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages based on his own calculation of what ought to be reasonable rather than any actual law or precedent. This is judicial lawmaking at its worst, and it deprives maritime law trial judges and juries of their long-standing power and responsibility to determine the appropriate remedy for reckless corporate behavior.
As Justice Stevens notes in a pointed dissent, the Court cannot identify a single state court in the entire country that has adopted the Court's 1:1 ratio. Stevens also explains that the majority ignores the will of Congress, which deliberately chose not to restrict the availability of punitive damages in this context.
Like other recent cases such as Ledbetter v. Goodyear (equal pay for women), Exxon v. Baker illustrates that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is willing to bend the law in favor of corporate interests that have improperly prevailed too often in recent years. It is a reminder, if progressives need one, of just how important it is to fight for the future of the Supreme Court.
So neither should anyone else on Huffingtonpost, or any other progressive Blog buy an Exxon product.
You want them to pay dearly for their Arrogance and recklessness?
Put them out of business by actively boycotting them.
It's a travesty that people still roll up to Exxon Stations and fill up their tanks.
It's the ultimate power - take away their revenue stream.
Obviously this decision will probably be followed by other decisions over the next several yrars to slowly reduce the maximum corporate damages and corporate responsibility.
Odd the companies are limited in judgments of punitive damages less than 300% of actual damages, yet the RIAA is able to fine $500 for 1 $0.99 cent song your child downloads Punitive damages of 50400% 503/3 = 168 times higher
Seems fair doesn't it.
Hey, judge, d'ya like that swimming pool we put in your backyard while you were away on the junket we paid for?... nah, it's a gift, we don't want anything for it, we just think you're a swell guy....
They did this in the cases of the 100+ Navajo miners that got lung cancer from working in small uranium mines in the 60s. The uranium mines were administered by a consortium of the oil companies of the US, working together. Most of the miners got lung cancer from breathing uranium dust with no respirators. Uranium is an alpha emitter.
The miners were suing for medical expenses. By the time (late 90s) their cases made it through the appeals process, which took 15 years, most were already dead. Incidentally, some of the oil men referred to the Navajos as "drunk Indians."
The same strategy was used in the Exxon Valdez case. If you can stretch things out long enough, half of the plaintiffs will die off.
Twenty years later, Exxon will now have the tremendous burden of paying out $500 million, or one DAY'S profit! Imagine, by continually litigating the Valdez disaster in court, Exxon is now paying 1/365th of what it was originally ordered to pay in terms of income (without regard to its victims and their opportunity cost of getting the money 20 years late)!!!
The interest Exxon has earned just on the $500 million it kept for 20 years is over $14 billion...assuming a measly 4% return.
http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/big-oil-pollutes-bribes-and-hijacks-its-place-in-power/