Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 563

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:39] PAGES PGT: OPLG

518

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Opinion of O(cid:146)Connor, J.

retroactive application . . . is supported by a legitimate legis-
lative purpose furthered by rational means,” for “judgments
about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the ex-
clusive province of the legislative and executive branches.”
Id., at 156 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court
concluded that Congress’ purpose in enacting the Coal Act
was legitimate and that Eastern’s obligations under the Act
are rationally related to those objectives, because Eastern’s
execution of pre-1974 NBCWA’s contributed to miners’ ex-
pectations of lifetime health beneﬁts.
Id., at 157. The
court rejected Eastern’s argument that costs of retiree
health beneﬁts should be borne by post-1974 coal operators,
reasoning that Eastern’s proposal would require coal opera-
tors to fund health beneﬁts for miners whom the operators
had never employed.
Id., at 158, n. 5. The court also noted
the substantial dividends that Eastern had received from
EACC.

Id., at 158.

The court analyzed Eastern’s claim that the Coal Act ef-
fects an uncompensated taking under the three factors set
out in Connolly v. Pension Beneﬁt Guaranty Corporation,
475 U. S. 211, 225 (1986): “(1) the economic impact of the reg-
ulation on the claimant, (2) the extent to which the regula-
tion interferes with the claimant’s reasonable investment-
backed expectations, and (3) the nature of the governmental
110 F. 3d, at 160. With respect to the Act’s eco-
action.”
nomic impact on Eastern, the court observed that the Act
“does not involve the total deprivation of an asset.”
Ibid.
The Act’s terms, the court found, “reﬂec[t] a sufﬁcient degree
of proportionality” because Eastern is assigned liability only
for miners “whom it employed for a relevant (and relatively
long) period of time,” and then only if no post-1977 NBCWA
Ibid. The
signatory (or related person) can be found.
court also rejected Eastern’s contention that the Act unrea-
sonably interferes with its investment-backed expectations,
explaining that the pattern of federal intervention in the coal
industry and Eastern’s role in fostering an expectation of