Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in _Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City _, such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of _Lochner v. New York _, requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result. While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories.

Contents

• 1 Parties

• 2 Background

  • 2.1 State of law

  • 2.2 Facts of case

  • 2.3 Prior history

  • 2.4 Procedural posture

• 3 Legal analysis

  • 3.1 Issue

  • 3.2 Arguments/theories

  • 3.3 Rule of law

  • 3.4 Holding

  • 3.5 Reasoning

  • 3.6 Notable concurring and dissenting opinions

• 4 Result

  • 4.1 Judgment/disposition

  • 4.2 Subsequent history

  • 4.3 Selected articles

• 5 See also

• 6 References

• 7 External links

Parties

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Parties")

Plaintiff/Petitioner

Eastern Enterprises, former coal company that had been assessed the responsibility to fund pensions of many former employees as a function of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992

Defendant/Respondent

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Amici Curiae

BITUMINOUS COAL OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION, INC., UMWA COMBINED BENEFIT FUND AND ITS TRUSTEES, and the representatives of other extensive interests.

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Background")

State of law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: State of law")

There are actually several different legal doctrines at work in this case. First, the case was decided under United States Supreme Court takings jurisprudence. The plurality looked to the factors enunciated in Penn Central to determine if the enacted legislation functioned to deprive Eastern Enterprises of property without just compensation. Since Penn Central, the factors enunciated by Justice Brennan therein have been used to determine when a regulation rises to the level of a taking thereby requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment . Second, since _Lochner v. New York _ the Court has been reluctant to find on due process grounds that economic regulation was beyond the power of Congress. Third, the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 was passed to remedy the insolvent pension plans of the coal mining labors which had been in place since the 1950s. Fourth, and perhaps not independent, the Court examined the ex post facto nature of the effect of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 on Eastern. The majority examined such under its Penn Central analysis while the concurrence and the dissents actually looked at it as a distinct basis to hold the Congressional Act unconstitutional.

Facts of case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Facts of case")

In 1950 and 1974, the Coal Mining industry established a pension plan for its workers. Under the plans, workers and their families believed they were to receive a pension and future healthcare. The healthcare aspects of the plan however, were disputed and the Coal Companies did not provide the health care as expected. As time wore on, the pensions slowly sank into depression as more and more coal operators withdrew from plan. Eastern Enterprises was a signatory to the pension plans since 1950 until it sold off its holdings in coal operations in 1987. In 1992 Congress passed the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 which required former Coal Operators to pay into the pension in certain situations when the former employee had worked for the company. Such requirement was in place even when the operator no longer was in the Coal Industry. Here, Eastern Enterprises was required to pay into the pension plans for some 100 past employees even though it had sold off its holdings in coal operations.

Prior history

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Prior history")

Eastern Enterprises filed suit against the Commissioner of Social Security in the District Court of Massachusetts. The District Court granted Summary Judgment for the Respondent and upheld the Commissioner's interpretation of the statute. Eastern Enterprises then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which affirmed the lower court's holding. The Supreme Court granted Certiorari.

Procedural posture

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Procedural posture")

Eastern Enterprises seeks reversal of the order granting summary judgment.

Legal analysis

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: Legal analysis")

Issue

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=8 "Edit section: Issue")

The Plurality considered the issue of (1) whether the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 as applied to Eastern Enterprises constitutes a taking for which just compensation is required

Arguments/theories

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=9 "Edit section: Arguments/theories")

Plurality: The statute violates the Penn Central factors and is thus a compensable taking. Specifically, Eastern Enterprises' (1) economic impact is substantial, (2) the Act interferes substantially with distinct investment backed expectations, and (3) the nature of the government action is unusual as it requires certain individuals to bear a substantial burden, and it does so retroactively. Concurrence: The statute is unconstitutional because it is an ex post facto law that retroactively imposes liability. Dissent: Takings jurisprudence should not be employed to decide if an economic regulation is proper. Traditional notions of due process are to be employed in such instances requiring an examination under rational basis scrutiny.

Rule of law

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=10 "Edit section: Rule of law")

The plurality ruled that the Penn Central factors applied in cases of economic regulation as a way to find a statute unconstitutional when it effects a taking of property for public use without just compensation. (Rule is limited by the fact that this is a plurality)

Holding

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel&action=edit&section=11 "Edit section: Holding")

The Court held that (1) the Coal Industr

…