Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 573

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

528

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

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

ity. We ﬁrst rejected the employer’s substantive due proc-
ess challenge based on our decisions in Gray and Turner
Elkhorn, notwithstanding the employer’s argument that the
MPPAA imposed upon it a higher liability than its contract
contemplated.
508 U. S., at 636–641. The claim under the
Takings Clause, meanwhile, was resolved by Connolly. We
explained that, as in that case, the Government had not occu-
pied or destroyed the employer’s property.
508 U. S., at
643–644. As to the severity of the MPPAA’s impact, we
concluded that the employer had not shown that its with-
drawal liability was “ ‘out of proportion to its experience
with the plan’ ”
Id., at 645 (quoting Connolly, supra, at
226). Turning to the employer’s reasonable investment-
backed expectations, we repeated our observation in Con-
nolly that “pension plans had long been subject to federal
regulation.”
508 U. S., at 645. Moreover, although the em-
ployer’s liability under the MPPAA exceeded ERISA’s origi-
nal cap on withdrawal liability, we found that there was “no
reasonable basis to expect that [ERISA’s] legislative ceiling
would never be lifted.”
In sum, as in Connolly,
Id., at 646.
the employer “voluntarily negotiated and maintained a pen-
sion plan which was determined to be within the strictures
of ERISA,” making the burden the MPPAA imposed upon
it neither unfair nor unjust.
508 U. S., at 646–647 (internal
quotation marks omitted).

Our opinions in Turner Elkhorn, Connolly, and Concrete
Pipe make clear that Congress has considerable leeway to
fashion economic legislation, including the power to affect
contractual commitments between private parties. Con-
gress also may impose retroactive liability to some degree,
particularly where it is “conﬁned to short and limited periods
required by the practicalities of producing national legis-
lation.” Gray, 467 U. S., at 731 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Our decisions, however, have left open the pos-
sibility that legislation might be unconstitutional if it im-
poses severe retroactive liability on a limited class of parties