Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million.
554 U.S. 471 · No. 07-219 · 2007 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 26, 2008 · argued Feb 27, 2008
Economic activity · Liability, punitive damages
Majority opinion: David Souter
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Vacated and remanded. Exxon Shipping Co. won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Exxon Shipping Co. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million.
The case was received by the Supreme Court of the United States from an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit had also ruled that Exxon could be held liable for the reckless conduct of the ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, who had left the bridge during the disaster and had been drinking vodka that evening. The Supreme Court was split 4–4 on the question of whether Exxon was liable for Hazelwood's action. The result of the split is that the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Exxon's respondeat superior liability for Hazelwood's conduct remains since Hazelwood acted in a managerial capacity under the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 909(c) approach to punitive damages.
After considering the punitive damage policies of foreign nations, the Court reasoned that although punitive damages were warranted, they may not exceed what Exxon already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, which was about US$500 million. It held that a one-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages was "a fair upper limit" in maritime cases that involved recklessness, compared to the lower liability of negligence or the higher liability of intentional conduct. Its reasoning, "The real problem, it seems, is the stark unpredictability of punitive awards," frustrates the goal of punitive damages, deterring reprehensible conduct, because predictable damages create an incentive to continue dangerous misconduct if the personal injury liability is less than the potential profit, as on the Ford Pinto. It suggested giving a "bad man" the chance to look ahead and to calculate the consequences of doing or not doing a bad act will deter harmful actions. He suggests the upper limits on punitive damages should be as predictable as the legislative range of criminal sentences, but no minimum for punitive damages were discussed.
Justice David Souter wrote for the majority, joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito took no part in the decision because he owns stock in ExxonMobil.
Justice Stevens wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2007 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
David SouterWrote the majority opinion
Antonin ScaliaWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Did not take part: Samuel Alito.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Exxon Shipping Co.Water transportation, stevedore
- Respondent
- BakerFisherman or fishing company
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Federal Water Pollution Control (Clean Water), plus amendments
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 26, 2008DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: vacated and remanded. Exxon Shipping Co. won.
- Feb 27, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Alaska U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
12 other argued cases since 1946 on liability, punitive damages, newest first.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton139 S. Ct. 2275Jun 24, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2275Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Paroline v. United States572 U.S. 434Apr 23, 2014 · 572 U.S. 434Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v. Edgar L. Townsend557 U.S. 404Jun 25, 2009 · 557 U.S. 404Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse D. Williams, Deceased549 U.S. 346Feb 20, 2007 · 549 U.S. 346Economic activity5–45–4 band
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Inez Preece Campbell and Matthew C. Barneck, Special Administrator and Personal Representative of the Estate of Curtis B. Campbell538 U.S. 408Apr 7, 2003 · 538 U.S. 408Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Kay Barnes, etc., et al. v. Jeffrey Gorman536 U.S. 181Jun 17, 2002 · 536 U.S. 181Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
- Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.532 U.S. 424May 14, 2001 · 532 U.S. 424Economic activity8–18–1 band
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Ira Gore, Jr.517 U.S. 559May 20, 1996 · 517 U.S. 559Economic activity5–45–4 band
- Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al. v. Karl L. Oberg512 U.S. 415Jun 24, 1994 · 512 U.S. 415Economic activity7–27–2 band
- Txo Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., et al.509 U.S. 443Jun 25, 1993 · 509 U.S. 443Economic activity6–36–3 band
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Cleopatra Haslip et al.499 U.S. 1Mar 4, 1991 · 499 U.S. 1Economic activity7–18–1 band
- Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc., et al. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., et al.492 U.S. 257Jun 26, 1989 · 492 U.S. 257Economic activity7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.