Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 583

524US2

Unit: $U94

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

538

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Thomas, J., concurring

and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, im-
provident, or out of harmony with a particular school of
thought”). Because we have determined that the third tier
of the Coal Act’s allocation scheme violates the Takings
Clause as applied to Eastern, we need not address Eastern’s
due process claim. Nor do we consider the ﬁrst two tiers of
the Act’s allocation scheme, 26 U. S. C. §§ 9706(a)(1) and (2),
as the liability that has been imposed on Eastern arises only
under the third tier. Cf. Printz v. United States, 521 U. S.
898, 934–935 (1997).

V

In enacting the Coal Act, Congress was responding to
a serious problem with the funding of health beneﬁts for
retired coal miners. While we do not question Congress’
power to address that problem, the solution it crafted im-
properly places a severe, disproportionate, and extremely
retroactive burden on Eastern. Accordingly, we conclude
that the Coal Act’s allocation of liability to Eastern violates
the Takings Clause, and that 26 U. S. C. § 9706(a)(3) should
be enjoined as applied to Eastern. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas, concurring.
Justice O(cid:146)Connor’s opinion correctly concludes that the
Coal Act’s imposition of retroactive liability on petitioner vi-
I write separately to emphasize
olates the Takings Clause.
that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, Art. I,
§ 9, cl. 3, even more clearly reﬂects the principle that “[r]etro-
spective laws are,
2 J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution § 1398, p. 272 (5th ed.
1891). Since Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798), however,
this Court has considered the Ex Post Facto Clause to apply
only in the criminal context.
I have never been convinced
of the soundness of this limitation, which in Calder was

indeed, generally unjust.”