Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 581

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

536

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

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

agreements. See Connolly, 475 U. S., at 230–231 (O(cid:146)Con-
nor, J., concurring) (imposition of liability “without regard
to the extent of a particular employer’s actual responsibility
for [a beneﬁt] plan’s promise of ﬁxed beneﬁts to employees”
could raise serious concerns under the Takings Clause).
Thus, unlike the pension withdrawal liability upheld in Con-
crete Pipe and Connolly, the Coal Act’s scheme for allocation
of Combined Fund premiums is not calibrated either to East-
ern’s past actions or to any agreement—implicit or other-
wise—by the company. Nor would the pattern of the Fed-
eral Government’s involvement in the coal industry have
given Eastern “sufﬁcient notice” that lifetime health beneﬁts
might be guaranteed to retirees several decades later. See
Connolly, supra, at 227.

Eastern’s liability also differs from coal operators’ respon-
sibility for beneﬁts under the Black Lung Beneﬁts Act of
1972. That legislation merely imposed “liability for the
effects of disabilities bred in the past [that] is justiﬁed as a
rational measure to spread the costs of the employees’ disa-
bilities to those who have proﬁted from the fruits of their
labor.” Turner Elkhorn, 428 U. S., at 18. Likewise, East-
ern might be responsible for employment-related health
problems of all former employees whether or not the cost
was foreseen at the time of employment, see id., at 16, but
there is no such connection here. There is no doubt that
many coal miners sacriﬁced their health on behalf of this
country’s industrial development, and we do not dispute that
some members of the industry promised lifetime medical
beneﬁts to miners and their dependents during the 1970’s.
Nor do we, as Justice Stevens suggests, post, at 553, ques-
tion Congress’ policy decision that the miners are entitled to
relief. But the Constitution does not permit a solution to
the problem of funding miners’ beneﬁts that imposes such
a disproportionate and severely retroactive burden upon
Eastern.