rejecting a due process–based argument that a law “im- pose[d] retroactive liability that is disproportionate to [the peti- tioner’s] participation in the . . . program” because the law served legitimate legislative purposes and Congress chose rational means
How later courts described this case
- rejecting a due process–based argument that a law “im- pose[d] retroactive liability that is disproportionate to [the peti- tioner’s] participation in the . . . program” because the law served legitimate legislative purposes and Congress chose rational means
- assuming that neither the four-person plurality nor a single justice’s concurrence was narrower, independently analyzing the underlying issue, and siding with the single justice, partly on the ground that the dissenters agreed
- concluding that imposing an obligation to contribute to a fund that would buy out tobacco farmers did not constitute an unconstitutional taking
- declining to apply takings analysis to a FETRA challenge in part because five justices in Eastern Enterprises “expressed the view that the Takings Clause does not apply, where there is a mere general liability”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COX, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I concur in the judgment. I agree that the Act does not violate the Takings Clause. I also concur in sections III.B. and III.C. of the opinion, holding that Swisher’s due process and equal protection rights are not violated by the obligations the Act imposes on Swisher.