Supremes Disregard Jury, Save Exxon $4.5 Billion

In its Exxon v. Baker decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that punitive damages that had been awarded against Exxon at trial totaling $5 billion should be reduced to equal the amount of compensatory damages, $507.5 million. The jury's decision to award the $5 billion, which was later lowered to $2.5 billion, was essentially disregarded. The Court indicated that the goal of punitive damages is to deter bad conduct by causing parties to think about what they're doing in light of possible punitive damages. It held that this threat cannot be infinite -- punitives must have some air of predictability, otherwise they violate due process. Besides, the jury's real intent was to punish Exxon just enough, not excessively.

That the Court wants to protect due process is understandable, but the question is if a jury is going to be disregarded, even when the parties were not prejudiced by procedure, why have a jury in the first place? The Court attempted to derive the jury's intent when it did not need to. The jury awarded $5 billion, and that verdict should have stood. If the Court had sent a message that juries will not be usurped, appellate dockets could have been cleared of needless appeals, saving court and taxpayer time, money, and other resources.