Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 611

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

566

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Breyer, J., dissenting

EACC General Counsel); id., at 2182 (Eastern Corporate
Cash Manual); see also id., at 2170–2173 (noting Eastern’s
proﬁts from, and control over, EACC); id., at 2178–2181; id.,
at 2192–2205. Eastern ofﬁcials, in their role as EACC direc-
tors, ratiﬁed the post-1965 bargaining agreements, Brief for
Bituminous Coal Operators’ Association, Inc., as Amicus Cu-
riae 28, and n. 20; Brief for Respondent Peabody Holding
Co., Inc., et al. 14–15, and must have remained aware of the
W&R Fund’s deepening ﬁnancial crisis.

Taken together, these circumstances explain why it is not
fundamentally unfair for Congress to impose upon Eastern
liability for the future health care costs of miners whom it
long ago employed—rather than imposing that liability, for
example, upon the present industry, coal consumers, or tax-
payers. Each diminishes the reasonableness of Eastern’s
expectation that, by leaving the industry, it could fall within
the Constitution’s protection against unfairly retroactive
liability.

These circumstances, as elaborated by the record, mean
that Eastern knew of the potential funding problems that
arise in any multiemployer beneﬁt plan, see Concrete Pipe,
508 U. S., at 637–639, before it left the industry. Eastern
knew or should have known that, in light of the structure of
the beneﬁt plan and the frequency with which coal operators
went out of business, a “last man out” problem could exacer-
bate the health plan’s funding difﬁculties. See, e. g., Boone
Report xvi; House Report 34; Coal Commission Report on
Health Beneﬁts of Retired Coal Miners: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Medicare and Long-Term Care of the Sen-
ate Committee on Finance, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., 15, 21
(1991) (statement of Coal Commission Vice Chairman Henry
Perritt, Jr.). Eastern also knew or should have known that
because of prior federal involvement, future federal inter-
vention to solve any such problem was a serious possibility.
Supra, at 564–565; see also Concrete Pipe, supra, at 645–646;
Connolly, 475 U. S., at 226–227; Usery, 428 U. S., at 15–16.