Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co.

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
John G. Roberts, Jr. (Argued the cause for the respondents Peabody Coal Company et al.)
Peter Buscemi (Argued the cause for the petitioners Holland, et al)
Barbara B. McDowell (Argued the cause for the petitioner Barnhart)
Jeffrey S. Sutton (Argued the cause for the respondents Bellaire Corporation, et al)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
01-705
Petitioner: 
Barnhart
Respondent: 
Peabody Coal Co.
Consolidation: 
No. 01-715
Opinion: 
537 U.S. 149 (2003)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. , 537 U.S. 149 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_705)
Facts of the Case: 

Under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits under the Act to a company, which shall then be responsible for funding the beneficiary's benefits. After October 1, 1993, the Commissioner assigned 600 hundred beneficiaries to various coal companies. The companies challenged the assignments, claiming that the statutory date sets a time limit on the Commissioner's power to assign such that a beneficiary not assigned on October 1, 1993 must be left unassigned for life. Under the companies' argument, the challenged assignments are void and the corresponding benefits must be financed by other pension plans and funds. The companies obtained summary judgments, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Question: 

Is the assignment of beneficiaries, under Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, valid if the assignment was made after the Act's October 1, 1993 deadline?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the Commissioner's initial assignments made after October 1, 1993, are valid despite their untimeliness. The Court reasoned that a statute directing official action needed more than a mandatory "shall" before the grant of power would be read to expire when the job was supposed to be completed. Moreover, Justice Souter noted that the Act was designed to assign the greatest number of beneficiaries and read the statutory date as a spur to prompt action. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion. Both read the Act has establishing a clear deadline for the expiration of the Commissioner's authority.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Barnhart, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 26 U.S.C. 9701

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Wrote a dissent, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter