# Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 498

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433697

## Case

- **Full name:** EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 25, 1998
- **Citations:** 524 U.S. 498; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 755; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6937; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3281; 22 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1225; 66 U.S.L.W. 4566; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5036; 118 S. Ct. 2131; 141 L. Ed. 2d 451; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4213
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Scaiia, Thomas, Clause, Claims, Government, See, Youpee, Aet, Security, Bank, Allard, Court'S, Aetna, Mining, Corporation, Act, Cal, Inc, Congress, Gray, Eastern, Fund, Pipe, Funds, Nbcwa'S, Nbcwa, Eastern'S, Retroactive, Corp, Romein, Erisa, Thus, Elkhom, Finally, Congress', Carlton, Landgrafv, Products, Because, Elkhorn, Plans, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
- **Cited by:** 653 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Anker Energy Corporation v. Consolidation Coal Company, 177 F.3d 161 (1999).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433697

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the character of a state regulation supported the movant’s takings claim only where it “single[d] out certain employers to bear a burden that is substantial in amount, based on the employers’ conduct far in the past, and unrelated to any commitment that the employ…
- stating that economic legislation “might be unconstitutional if it imposes severe retroactive liability on a limited class of parties that could not have anticipated the liability, and if the extent of that liability is substantially disproportionate to the parties’ experience”
- stating that "at the *737 heart of the [Takings] Clause lies a concern, not with preventing arbitrary or unfair government action, but with providing compensation for legitimate government action that takes 'private property’ to serve the ‘public’ good.”
- stating that ―at the heart of the [Takings] Clause lies a concern, not with preventing arbitrary or unfair government action, but with providing compensation for legitimate government action that takes ‗private property‘ to serve the ‗public‘ good.‖
- explaining that the plaintiff challenged the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, which required it to pay over $5 million per year into a private fund for former coal workers, as an unconstitutional regulatory taking

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
concurring.
Justice O’Connor’s opinion correctly concludes that the Coal Act’s imposition of retroactive liability on petitioner violates the Takings Clause. I write separately to emphasize that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, even more clearly reflects the principle that “[Retrospective laws are, indeed, generally unjust.” 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 *539 principally justified because a contrary interpretation would render the Takings Clause unnecessary. See id., at 394 (opinion of Chase, J.). In an appropriate case, therefore, I would be willing to reconsider Colder and its progeny to determine whether a retroactive civil law that passes muster under our current Takings Clause jurisprudence is nonetheless unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause. Today’s case, however, does present an unconstitutional taking, and I join Justice O’Connor’s well-reasoned opinion in full.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433697. Public record. Not legal advice.