Southern Union Co. v. United States
132 S. Ct. 2344
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Southern Union Company stored liquid mercury (hazardous waste) at Pawtucket facility; mercury incident in 2004 caused displacement and testing; 2007 grand jury indicted on multiple counts including knowingly storing mercury without a permit under RCRA; jury convicted the specific count alleging storage from 9/19/2002 to 10/19/2004; RCRA fines up to $50,000 per day yield a potential maximum fine; district court based $38.1 million maximum on 762 days and imposed $6 million fine plus $12 million community service obligation; jury did not specify exact duration of violation; First Circuit affirmed, holding Apprendi does not apply to fines; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue and reversed, holding Apprendi applies to criminal fines; remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Apprendi apply to criminal fines? | Government contends Apprendi does not apply to fines. | Southern Union argues Apprendi applies to any punishment, including fines. | Yes, Apprendi applies to criminal fines. |
| Are sentencing facts for fines (e.g., number of violation days) required to be jury-found? | Government maintains facts beyond jury verdict are permissible; duration can be judge-found. | Southern Union argues duration is a fact that raises the maximum fine and must be jury-found. | Yes, duration/days determining the maximum fine must be jury-found. |
| What is the historical role of juries vs. judges in setting fines? | Historical practice supports jury involvement in determining fine-enhancing facts; majority holds Apprendi applies to fines. | ||
| Would applying Apprendi to fines disrupt state/federal sentencing regimes and policy aims? | No, the rule applies to ensure jury protection; policy concerns do not override Apprendi. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (extended maximum punishment determined by jury findings beyond prior conviction)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (guideline-based enhancement requires jury findings)
- Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (limits on judicial factfinding in sentencing within statutory maximum)
- Ice v. Oregon, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing; historic jury role relevant to Apprendi scope)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (death-penalty factors require jury findings)
- United States v. Pfaff, 619 F.3d 172 (2010) (CA2; application of Apprendi to fines in some circuits)
- LaGrou Distribution Sys., Inc. v. United States, 466 F.3d 585 (2006) (CA7; application of Apprendi to fines)