Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., et al.
534 U.S. 438 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign liability for a defunct signatory operator's retired miners to that operator's successor in interest, because a successor in interest to a signatory operator is not included in the Act's specific definition of a 'related person'.
Facts:
- Shackleford Coal Company was a signatory to a national coal wage agreement, obligating it to contribute to retiree health benefit plans.
- In 1973, Irdell Mining, Inc. purchased the coal mining assets of Shackleford.
- As part of the sale, Irdell assumed responsibility for Shackleford's contracts, including its collective-bargaining agreement with the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA).
- There was no common ownership between Irdell and the original Shackleford.
- Irdell later changed its name to Jericol Mining, Inc. (Jericol).
- Between 1993 and 1997, the Commissioner of Social Security assigned premium responsibility to Jericol for 86 miners who had retired from the original Shackleford.
- The Commissioner based this assignment on the determination that Jericol, as Shackleford's successor in interest, qualified as a 'related person' under the Coal Act.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Social Security assigned premium responsibility for 86 retired miners to Jericol Mining, Inc., through administrative proceedings.
- Sigmon Coal Company and Jericol filed suit against the Commissioner in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, challenging the assignments.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Sigmon and Jericol, enjoining the Commissioner from making such assignments.
- The Commissioner (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of Jericol (appellee).
- The Commissioner (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign liability for retired miners' health care premiums to a company that is a successor in interest to a signatory operator that is no longer in business?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the assignment of liability to a successor in interest of a signatory operator. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous and controls. The Act allows assignment to a signatory operator or a 'related person,' which the statute defines in three specific categories: (i) a member of a controlled group of corporations, (ii) a business under common control, or (iii) a partner or joint venturer. A final clause states a 'related person' also includes a 'successor in interest of any person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii).' Critically, the signatory operator itself is not described in any of those three clauses. Therefore, its successor in interest cannot be a 'related person' under the statute's explicit definition. Where Congress intended to impose successor liability elsewhere in the Coal Act, it did so explicitly, and its omission here is presumed to be intentional. Legislative history, such as floor statements by the bill's sponsors, cannot be used to override the clear and unambiguous text of the enacted statute.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Coal Act should be construed to permit the assignment of liability to a successor in interest of a signatory operator. The majority’s adherence to a literal reading of the text produces absurd results where a successor to the actual coal mine is not liable, but a successor to an affiliated, non-coal business could be. This contravenes the Act's clear purpose to assign liability to the 'persons most responsible.' The legislative history, including statements from the bill's sponsors, Senators Rockefeller and Wallop, provides clear evidence that Congress intended for successors of signatory operators to be held liable. Furthermore, default principles of statutory construction under the Dictionary Act, the agency's consistent interpretation, and the Court's own precedent on successorship in labor law all support a reading that includes direct successors to prevent recreating the very 'orphan retiree' problem the Coal Act was designed to solve.
Analysis:
This case is a significant application of the textualist method of statutory interpretation, prioritizing the plain meaning of the statutory text over legislative history or perceived congressional intent. The decision establishes that courts will not 'correct' a statute that produces arguably odd or counter-intuitive results if the text is unambiguous, viewing such outcomes as potential products of legislative compromise. By narrowly construing the definition of 'related person,' the Court limited the scope of liability under the Coal Act. This shifts the financial burden for certain orphaned miners away from direct business successors and onto the remaining operators participating in the Combined Fund, potentially impacting the fund's long-term stability.
Unlock the full brief for Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., et al.