Opinion ID: 78216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Is either the plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy's concurrence controlling?

Text: As indicated above, the decision in Eastern Enterprises constitutes a fragmented decision in which the five Justices concurring in the judgment did not agree upon a single rationale to explain the result. In such a case, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 993, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977). We note that the Supreme Court has commented that the Marks inquiry has so obviously baffled and divided the lower courts. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 746, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 1927, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994); see also Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 2337, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003). Courts of appeal have applied several different formulations of the Marks rule. Although this Court has recently applied one particular formulation, United States v. Robison, 505 F.3d 1208, 1219-22 (11th Cir. 2007), [4] we need not in this case apply any particular formulation. This is so because Justice O'Connor's opinion for the plurality in Eastern Enterprises would not constitute binding authority (i.e., would not constitute the narrower ground) under any of the several formulations of the Marks inquiry. [5] We need not decide whether Justice Kennedy's concurrence constitutes the narrower ground, because we can assume arguendo that neither opinion constitutes the narrower ground, thus leaving us without binding authority, and leaving us with the obligation to independently evaluate the case law and determine for ourselves which approach is more consistent with the case law and more plausible. As elaborated below, our independent evaluation leads us to conclude that the takings analysis is not appropriate for this case. Our independent evaluation of the case law leads us to agree with Justice Kennedy that the takings analysis is not an appropriate analysis for the constitutional evaluation of an obligation imposed by Congress merely to pay money. In the Supreme Court case, Eastern Enterprises challenged the power of Congress to require that it contribute to the funding of health care benefits for retirees in the coal industry, a mere obligation to pay money. Similarly, in the instant case, Swisher challenges the power of Congress to impose upon it assessments under the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act as a contribution toward the funding of the buyout of tobacco growers and the transition to the free market systemagain a mere obligation to pay money. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, such an obligation does not operate upon or alter an identified property interest, and it is not applicable to or measured by a property interest. The Coal Act does not appropriate, transfer, or encumber an estate in land ( e.g., a lien on a particular piece of property), a valuable interest in an intangible ( e.g., intellectual property), or even a bank account or accrued interest. The law simply imposes an obligation to perform an act, the payment of benefits. Eastern Enterprises, 524 U.S. at 540, 118 S.Ct. at 2154 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part). [6] Swisher's argument in this case challenges the very power of Congress to impose the obligation at issue upon Swisher. In other words, Swisher asserts a substantive or absolute limit on the government's power to act. Id. at 545, 118 S.Ct. at 2157. As Justice Kennedy points out, the Takings Clause, by its plain language, does not operate as a substantive or absolute limit on the government's power; rather, it operates only as a conditional limitation, permitting the taking so long as the government pays just compensation. As the Supreme Court stated in 1987: As its language indicates, and as the Court has frequently noted, this provision [the Takings Clause] does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. This basic understanding of the amendment makes clear that it is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 314-15, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 2385-86, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987) (citations omitted). In addition to the plain language of the Takings Clause, the case law following Eastern Enterprises supports the proposition that the takings analysis is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge the power of Congress to impose a mere monetary obligation without regard to an identifiable property interest. In Givens v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 381 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir.2004), we held that an Alabama inmate had no private property interest in the interest earned on the monies deposited in a bank account in the inmate's name into which earnings of the inmate pursuant to the work-release program were deposited. Id. at 1070. Because no recognized property interest is implicated here, ... there is no `taking.' Id. Similarly, in the post- Eastern Enterprises cases construing the Coal Act, and in analogous contexts, several circuit courts of appeals have applied a substantive due process analysis, rather than a takings analysis. [7] Moreover, that the takings analysis is not appropriate in this case is supported by persuasive authority. Five Supreme Court Justices have expressed the view that the Takings Clause does not apply where there is a mere general liability (i.e., no separately identifiable fund of money) and where the challenge seeks to invalidate the statute rather than merely seeking compensation for an otherwise proper taking. Eastern Enterprises, 524 U.S. at 539-47, 118 S.Ct. at 2154-58 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part); id. at 554-56, 118 S.Ct. at 2161-63 (Breyer, J., joined by Stevens, J., Souter, J., and Ginsburg, J., dissenting). [8] Accordingly, we conclude that it would be inappropriate in this case to apply a takings analysis. [9] This leaves only Swisher's substantive due process challenge.