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 Scalia,
concurring in the judgment.
I was (and remain) of the view that excessive punitive damages do not violate the Due Process Clause; but the Court held otherwise. See BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559 (1996); id., at 598 (Scalia, J., dissenting). And I was of the view that we should review for abuse *444 of discretion (rather than de novo) fact-bound constitutional issues which, in their resistance to meaningful generalization, resemble the question of exeessiveness of punitive damages — namely, whether there exists reasonable suspicion for a stop and probable cause for a search; but the Court held otherwise. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996); id., at 700 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Finally, in a case in which I joined a dissent that made it unnecessary for me to reach the issue, the Court categorically stated that "the question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for ... de novo review.” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321, 336-387, n. 10 (1998); see id., at 344 (KENNEDY, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor and Scalia, JJ., dissenting). Given these precedents, I agree that de novo review of the question of excessive punitive damages best accords with our jurisprudence. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.