Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 612.0

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:40] PAGES PGT: OPLG

Cite as: 524 U. S. 498 (1998)

567

Breyer, J., dissenting

Eastern knew, by the very nature of the problem, that any
legislative effort to solve such a problem could well occur
many years into the future. And, most importantly, East-
ern played a signiﬁcant role in creating the miners’ expecta-
tions that led to this legislation. Add to these circumstances
the two others I have mentioned—that Eastern had bene-
ﬁted from the labor of the miners for whose future health
care it must provide, and that Eastern remained in the indus-
try, drawing from it substantial proﬁts (though doing busi-
ness through a subsidiary, which usually, but not always, in-
sulates an owner from liability).

The upshot, if I follow the form of analysis this Court used
in Connolly, is that I cannot say the Government’s regulation
has unfairly interfered with Eastern’s “distinct investment-
backed expectations.” See Connolly, supra, at 225–227
(analyzing “taking” in terms of three factors: (1) “economic
impact”; (2) interference “ ‘with distinct investment-backed
expectations’ ”; and (3) “ ‘character of the governmental ac-
tion’ ” (citations omitted)). Within that framework, I could
ﬁnd additional support for the constitutionality of the “reach-
back” liability provision by adding that the “character of the
governmental action” here amounts to the creation of a lia-
bility to a third party, and not a direct “taking” of an in-
terest in physical property. And the fact that the statute
here narrows Eastern’s liability to those whom it employed,
while explicitly preserving Eastern’s rights to indemniﬁca-
tion from others (thereby helping Eastern spread the risk of
this liability), 26 U. S. C. § 9706(f)(6), helps to diminish the
Coal Act’s “economic impact” upon Eastern as well.

I would put the matter more directly, however. The law
imposes upon Eastern the burden of showing that the stat-
ute, because of its retroactive effect, is fundamentally unfair
or unjust. The circumstances I have mentioned convince
me that Eastern cannot show a sufﬁciently reasonable ex-
pectation that it would remain free of future health care cost
liability for the workers whom it employed. Eastern has