Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
438 U.S. 234 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that retroactively imposes a severe, permanent, and unexpected contractual obligation on a private party violates the Contract Clause of the Constitution if it is not necessary to meet an important, broad, and general social or economic problem.
Facts:
- In 1963, Allied Structural Steel Co. established a voluntary, single-employer pension plan for its salaried employees.
- Under the plan's terms, an employee's pension rights would only vest upon meeting specific age and length-of-service requirements.
- The company was the sole contributor to the pension fund and retained the unrestricted right to amend or terminate the plan at any time.
- The plan explicitly stated that employees had no right to assets upon termination of employment except as provided under the plan's terms.
- On April 9, 1974, Minnesota enacted the Private Pension Benefits Protection Act, which imposed a 'pension funding charge' on certain employers.
- The Act required employers who closed a Minnesota office to pay for pensions for all employees who had worked for 10 or more years, regardless of whether their rights had vested under the employer's plan.
- During the summer of 1974, Allied Structural Steel began closing its Minnesota office and discharged 11 employees.
- At least nine of the discharged employees had worked for the company for 10 years or more but did not have vested pension rights under the company's plan.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Minnesota notified Allied Structural Steel Co. that it owed a pension funding charge of approximately $185,000 under the Private Pension Benefits Protection Act.
- Allied Structural Steel Co. brought suit against Minnesota officials in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act as applied to the company.
- Allied Structural Steel Co. appealed the District Court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law that retroactively modifies a company's private pension plan by imposing a new, unexpected funding obligation upon the closure of an in-state office violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, the Minnesota law violates the Contract Clause. A state law violates the Contract Clause if it operates as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship and is not justified by a significant and legitimate public purpose. Here, the law severely impaired the company's contractual obligations by retroactively changing the vesting rules, nullifying express terms of the plan, and imposing a completely unexpected liability. This severe impairment was not justified because the law was not enacted to address a broad, generalized economic or social problem, but rather had an extremely narrow focus, applying only to a small number of employers who voluntarily established pension plans. It was not a temporary measure enacted in an emergency, but a permanent and immediate change to the company's contractual relationship in an area never before subject to state regulation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the Minnesota law does not violate the Contract Clause. The historical purpose of the Contract Clause was to prohibit states from enacting laws that relieve parties from their contractual debts, not to prevent states from imposing new, additional obligations in the public interest. The law does not diminish any obligation owed to the company; it creates a new one to protect employees' pension expectations. Any constitutional challenge to this law should be analyzed under the Due Process Clause, not the Contract Clause. Under a due process analysis, the law is a rational measure to remedy the serious social problem of employees losing pension benefits when a plant closes and should be upheld.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant revitalization of the Contract Clause, which had been interpreted narrowly for several decades. The Court established a heightened level of scrutiny for state laws that retroactively and substantially impair private contractual obligations. By striking down the Minnesota law, the Court signaled that state economic regulations targeting specific businesses, especially in areas not previously regulated, would face serious constitutional challenges. This precedent limits the states' police power to alter existing private contracts, requiring a strong justification linked to a broad societal interest rather than a narrow legislative aim.
Unlock the full brief for Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus