{
  "id": "RL33773",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33773",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 355839,
      "date": "2010-01-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T02:01:43.278664",
      "title": "Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis of Supreme Court Precedent",
      "summary": "In civil cases, courts sometimes award punitive (or exemplary) damages in addition to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are meant to redress the \u201closs the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant\u2019s wrongful conduct,\u201d in an attempt to \u201ccompensate\u201d the injured person for the loss suffered. Where a defendant has engaged in particularly egregious conduct, however, punitive damages can be awarded in addition to compensatory damages. A punitive damages award will generally exceed the actual value of the harm caused by the defendant. Although the permissible motivations behind awarding punitive damages are somewhat unsettled, it is generally accepted that punitive damages serve the dual purposes of deterrence and retribution. The U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, has characterized the imposition of punitive damages as \u201cquasi criminal ... private fines\u201d that act as \u201can expression of [the jury\u2019s] moral condemnation.\u201d\nHistorically, large punitive damages awards have been alleged to violate both the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition on excessive fines and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause. The Court, however, has rejected the notion that large punitive damage awards can violate the former provision, holding that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable where \u201cthe government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.\u201d The Due Process clause, on the other hand, has been interpreted by the court to place certain constitutional limitations on large punitive damages awards. After initially assessing the validity of punitive damage awards based on \u201cgeneral concerns of reasonableness,\u201d the modern Court now applies a more detailed, multi-factor framework in reviewing punitive damages. However, the fundamental underlying principle\u2014that punitive damages awards that are grossly excessive or imposed without adequate procedural protections violate Due Process\u2014has consistently formed the foundation of the Court\u2019s constitutional analysis. Although the Court has been ambiguous as to whether punitive damages limits exist as a result of procedural or substantive due process, the Court has been clear that while the states have \u201cbroad discretion ... with respect to the imposition of ... punitive damages,\u201d the Due Process Clause bans punitive damages awards that are grossly excessive or imposed without adequate procedural protections.\nThis report summarizes decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in relevant punitive damages cases, provides a synthesis of the key factors the Court has employed in considering the constitutionality of punitive damages awards, and details the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Court\u2019s punitive damages jurisprudence.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33773",
          "sha1": "751ffd18aa4e122272d84931f32fe80fbaa9bee2",
          "filename": "files/20100125_RL33773_751ffd18aa4e122272d84931f32fe80fbaa9bee2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33773",
          "sha1": "98ae390f96565d96d4efb07dbba10f68cb328df3",
          "filename": "files/20100125_RL33773_98ae390f96565d96d4efb07dbba10f68cb328df3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819654/",
      "id": "RL33773_2007Jul17",
      "date": "2007-07-17",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis of the Supreme Court Case Philip Morris USA v. Williams",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070717_RL33773_5d08f51c2c6d6007d3fff7c02d36fb6e441f1431.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070717_RL33773_5d08f51c2c6d6007d3fff7c02d36fb6e441f1431.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}