Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 579.0

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

534

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

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

a similar safeguard against retrospective legislation con-
cerning property rights. See id., at 394 (opinion of Chase,
J.) (“The restraint against making any ex post facto laws
was not considered, by the framers of the constitution, as
extending to prohibit the depriving a citizen even of a vested
right to property; or the provision, ‘that private property
should not be taken for public use, without just compensa-
tion,’ was unnecessary”).
In Security Industrial Bank, we
considered a Takings Clause challenge to a Bankruptcy Code
provision permitting debtors to avoid certain liens, possibly
including those predating the statute’s enactment. We ex-
pressed “substantial doubt whether the retroactive destruc-
tion of the appellees’ liens . . . comport[ed] with the Fifth
Amendment,” and therefore construed the statute as apply-
ing only to lien interests vesting after the legislation took
effect.
459 U. S., at 78–79. Similar concerns led this Court
to strike down a bankruptcy provision as an unconstitutional
taking where it affected substantive rights acquired before
the provision was adopted. Louisville Joint Stock Land
Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555, 601–602 (1935).

Like those provisions, the Coal Act operates retroactively,
divesting Eastern of property long after the company be-
lieved its liabilities under the 1950 W&R Fund to have been
settled. And the extent of Eastern’s retroactive liability is
substantial and particularly far reaching. Even in areas in
which retroactivity is generally tolerated, such as tax legisla-
tion, some limits have been suggested. See, e. g., United
States v. Darusmont, 449 U. S. 292, 296–297 (1981) (per cu-
riam) (noting Congress’ practice of conﬁning retroactive ap-
plication of tax provisions to “short and limited periods”).
The distance into the past that the Act reaches back to
impose a liability on Eastern and the magnitude of that
liability raise substantial questions of fairness. See Con-
nolly, supra, at 229 (O(cid:146)Connor, J., concurring) (questioning
constitutionality of imposing liability on “employers for un-
funded beneﬁts that accrued in the past under a pension plan