O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. As relevant here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the punitive damages award, concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce that award. A jury's assessment of the former is essentially a factual determination, but its imposition of the latter is an expression of its moral condemnation.
States have broad discretion in imposing criminal penalties and punitive damages.
The cases in which such limits were enforced involved constitutional violations predicated on judicial determinations that the punishments were grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense. Moreover, and of greatest relevance for the instant issue, in each case the Court has engaged in an independent examination of the relevant criteria. It seems likely in this case that a thorough, independent review of the District Court's rejection of Cooper's due process objections to the punitive damages award might have led the Ninth Circuit to reach a different result. In fact, this Court's own consideration of the three Gore factors reveals questionable conclusions by the District Court that may not survive de novo review and illustrates why the Ninth Circuit's answer to the constitutional question may depend on the standard of review. 205 F.3d 1351, vacated and remanded.