Syllabus | Opinion [ Stevens ] | Concurrence [ Thomas ] | Concurrence [ Scalia ] | Dissent [ Ginsburg ] |
---|---|---|---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER v. LEATHERMAN TOOL GROUP, INC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[May 14, 2001]
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 of discretion (rather than de novo) fact-bound constitutional issues which, in their resistance to meaningful generalization, resemble the question of excessiveness of punitive damagesnamely, 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, 336337, n. 10 (1998); see id., at 344 (Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and OConnor 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.