finding that "courts of appeals must review the proportionality determination 'de novo’ .... 'The factual findings made by the district courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous .... But the question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate’ ” (quoting United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 336-37 n. 10, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998))
How later courts described this case
- finding that "courts of appeals must review the proportionality determination 'de novo’ .... 'The factual findings made by the district courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous .... But the question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate’ ” (quoting United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 336-37 n. 10, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998))
- reasoning that compensatory damages “are intended to redress the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant's wrongful conduct,” whereas punitive damages "operate as 'private fines’ intended to punish the defendant and to deter future wrongdoing”
- holding that federal due process requires de novo review of punitive damage awards appealed on constitutional grounds
- explaining that punitive damages are “quasi-criminal, operate as private fines intended to punish the defendant and to deter future wrongdoing,” and reflect the jury’s “moral condemnation (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Thomas,
concurring.
I continue to believe that the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 599 (1996) (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., dissenting). For this reason, given the opportunity, I would vote to overrule BMW. This case, however, does not present such an opportunity. The only issue before us today is what standard should be used to review a trial court’s ruling on a BMW challenge. Because I agree with the Court’s resolution of that issue, I join the opinion of the Court.