Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
Some appellate judges are better historians than others.
With respect to the central issue resolved by the Coal Act of 1992, I am persuaded that the consensus among the circuit judges who have appraised the issue is more accurate than the views of this Court's majority. The uneasy truce between the coal operators and the miners that enabled coal production to continue during the 1950's and 1960's depended more on the value of a handshake than the fine print in written documents. During that period there was an implicit understanding on both sides of the bargaining table that the operators would provide the miners with lifetime health benefits. It was this understanding that kept the mines in operation and enabled Eastern to earn handsome profits before it transferred its coal business to a wholly-owned subsidiary in 1965. And it is the same understanding that led legislators in both political parties to conclude that the Coal Act of 1992 represented a fair solution to a difficult problem.