The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Exxon Mobil's plea to reduce the $2.5 billion fine handed out after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The company, who say they shouldn't be held responsible for the drunken driving of ship captain Joseph Hazelwood, calls the punishment unconstitutionally excessive.
Opponents -- fishermen, cannery workers, Native Alaskans, small businesses and other locals -- say that $2.5 billion, while indeed larger than any other oil spill fine, is not an excessive price for fouling 1,200 miles of pristine Alaskan coastline, especially when taken in the context of Exxon Mobil's earnings: as the world's largest private oil company, Exxon reported profits of $39.5 billion in 2006.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker arrives at the Supreme Court after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the damages award. As the Washington Post reports, the Court will "consider whether the Clean Water Act and maritime laws allow for punitive damages, and if so, whether the award is excessive." Exxon will argue that the $3.4 billion they've already spent on cleanup and reparations makes the fine-- whose purpose is to "punish wrongdoing and deter future misconduct" -- unnecessary.
Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 of Exxon stock, has recused himself from the case, which will be heard next February or March.
I'm hardly a Constitutional or maritime law scholar, so I'll refrain from commenting on the technical definition of punitive damages and subsequent legality of the $2.5 billion fine. As to whether maritime law even allows punitive damages, however, there appears to be a significant body of precedent suggesting that Exxon Mobil had better whip out its checkbook.
I host a daily public affairs radio show in San Francisco called Your Call. It airs from 11 am - noon PST on KALW 91.7 FM. I am also happy to report that I recently got a book deal with PoliPoint Press to write about my road trip through the heartland and the interviews I did with people about why they vote the way they do (or not). It's scheduled to be out in September.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito owns Exxon stock
According to this Wired article, Justice Alito owns between $100K and $250K of Exxon stock. Do we really want a guy who owns Exxon stock sitting on the high court? He's going to be there for at least 25 years. Is he going to recuse himself every time a case about the environment comes up?
"Is he going to recuse himself every time a case about the environment comes up?"
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
Are you suggesting that Roberts has stock in every company that might have a case kicked up to the Supreme Court involving environmental issues?
Exxon is one of the biggest oil companies in the world and because they will most liekely be involved in environemtnal cases over tehcoming decades, Alito should recuse himself. Then again, Bush's team are all oil men.
ReplyDeleteOh? Just how many Supreme Court lawsuits is Exxon involved with per decade?
ReplyDeleteAnd what the hell does Bush's "oil men" (whoever they might be) have to do with Roberts or Supreme Court decisions?
Alito and Roberts are Bush's (men) appointments. Alito owns $100,001-$250,000 of Exxon Stock (oil men).
ReplyDeleteAlito and Roberts are Supreme Court Justices
Hope that helps..
Justice will be serve/
ReplyDeleteQuite helpful piece of writing, thanks so much for this post.
ReplyDeleteI found a great deal of helpful information above!
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing information. It is quite useful for us also. I always love to read such type of things.
ReplyDelete