*1 Ap- States Court of Clerk for United Plaintiff, Belfry Corporation, Coal the Fourth Circuit. peals for _ December, day of this Entered Larry MASSANARI, Acting G. Commis- 2001. Security sioner of Social Administra- Holland; tion; Michael H. P. Chairperson William C. Cacheris-Panel James Marty Hudson; Hobgood; D. Thomas Judge States District Senior United Rand; Segal; O.S. Elliott A. Carl E. Brinkema M. Leonie Horn; Wilensky, Van Gail R. Trustees Mine Amer- United Workers of Judge District United States Fund; ica Benefit Combined United B. Friedman Jerome Mine of America Workers Combined Fund, Defendants-Appellees, Benefit Judge District States United Richmond, Virginia Company;
Trace Fork Coal Goals Coal Company; Valley Compa- Green Coal ny; Company; Lick Branch Coal Ea- gle Energy, Incorporated; Power Company; Mountain Coal Williams Company, Mountain Coal Defendants. No. 01-2155. Appeals, United States Court of Fourth Circuit. Argued April 2002. Sept. Decided COMPANY, INC.; A.T. MASSEY COAL Services, Incorporated; Coal Eagle Company; Peerless Coal Ten- Company;
nessee Consolidated Coal Processing Company;
Rawl Sales Mining Company;
Omar PM Charles Rocky Company;
Coal Hollow Coal
Co; Processing Sprouse Creek Com-
pany; Big Mining Company; Bear Company; Douglas
Dehue Coal Poca- Corporation; Hopkins
hontas Coal Coal; Company; Joboner Coal
Creek
Majestic Mining, Incorporated; Per Company; Vantage
formance
Mining Company; Russell Fork Coal
Company; Mining Company, Vesta and Counterclaim Defen-
dant-Appellants, *2 McCallum, Jr., Attorney
D. Assistant Gen- eral, McNulty, Paul At- J. United States Stern, Staff, torney, Appellate Mark B. Division, Department Civil United States *3 Justice, D.C., Washington, for Federal Defendants-Appellees. KING, NIEMEYER,
Before and GREGORY, Judges. Circuit ' by published opinion. Judge Affirmed in opinion, Judge KING wrote the which joined. Judge NIEMEYER GREGORY in opinion concurring wrote an judgment dissenting part. and OPINION KING, Judge: Circuit Massey Massey A.T. Company, Coal Services, Eagle Peerless Coal Com- pany, and Tennessee Consolidated Coal (the Plaintiffs”) “Massey Company appeal the decision of the district court that ren- Woodrum, Heen- Ray ARGUED: John dered them liable for the benefits of cer- L.L.P., an, Roles, Washington, Althen & tain Industry beneficiaries under the Coal D.C., for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim De- Retiree Health Benefit Act of Buscemi, fendants-Appellants. Peter (the §§ 9701-9722 Act” or U.S.C. “Coal Bockius, L.L.P., Morgan, & Wash- Lewis “Act”). The Plaintiffs main- D.C.; Swingle, Appellate ington, Sharon tain assignments that their are Staff, Division, Depart- Civil United States Supreme unconstitutional Justice, D.C., Washington, ment of for De- Court’s decision Eastern BRIEF: fendants-Appellees. Marga- ON Apfel, 524 U.S. Heenan, Roles, Althen Lopez, ret S. & (1998), L.Ed.2d they assert D.C.; L.L.P., Poma, Washington, John M. assignments also violate the Adminis- Inc., Company, A.T. Rich- Massey Coal trative Procedure 5 U.S.C. 701 et mond, for Plaintiffs and Virginia, Counter- (the “APA”). seq. For the reasons ex- Stanley claim F. Defendants-Appellants. below, plained we conclude that these con- Lechner, Groppe, Morgan, P. Charles merit, tentions are without affirm we Bockius, L.L.P., Washington, Lewis & the district court. D.C.; Brock, III, Troutman, Samuel M. Sanders, Valentine, Richmond, Mays & I. Mooney, Marilyn R. A. Virginia; John Baker, Green, Saindon, Baker Mooney, proceeding & This arises from the efforts P.C., D.C.; Allen, Washington, Congress David W. to alleviate a crisis in the General, funding Office of the UMWA Health and of retiree health benefits that en- Funds, D.C., Washington, gulfed industry Retirement for the coal in the late 1980s. Defendants-Appellees spiraling Trustees. Robert the wake of health care costs assignments to coal declining operators, numbers of that he Act in 1992 to similarly enacted the Coal deemed to be situated to Congress East- their that retired coal miners and ern. The ensure Commissioner did not find the “Beneficiaries”) (the situated, would re- dependents similarly Plaintiffs be adequate however, health ceive death benefits and he declined to void the as- (the “Benefits”). In order to pay care signments he had earlier made to them. Benefits, mul- the Act established a formally then re- plan known as the Unit- tiemployer quested benefit that certain of their (the voided, Mine of America Combined “Massey ed Workers Assignments”) be but (the Fund”). Fund Benefit “Combined the Commissioner denied their requests. *4 by Fund financed annual The Combined is 1999, January In the current and premiums against assessed initiated this suit the Eastern District of It operators. former coal utilizes a com- Commissioner, Virginia against the process assign administrative liabil- plex Fund, Combined and the Fund’s Trustees. ity operator for most clear- Benefits They contended that the Assign ly employment connected to a coal miner’s Takings ments violate the and Due Pro industry. places The Act Amendment, cess of the Fifth Clauses administering as- responsibility this well as certain provisions of the APA. On signment process with the Commissioner summary judgment, cross-motions for (the “Commissioner”), Security of Social court, 19, July 2001, district on ruled in places responsibility and it for adminis- defendants, favor of the concluding that Fund with the Fund’s tering Combined Massey Assignments did not contra au- statutory Trustees. Pursuant to his holding vene the Court’s in Eastern Enter thority, multiple the Commissioner made Co., prises. A.T. Inc. Coal v. assignments liability. Among those as- (E.D.Va. Massanari, F.Supp.2d 153 813 signments were several made to the Mas- 2001). Plaintiffs, sey including assignments appeal. issue in this II. challenged
Certain entities
the efforts of
and the Combined Fund
Commissioner
leading
The events
to the enactment of
impose liability
on them for Benefits
by
Act have been well
Coal
chronicled
1998,
Act. In
due under the Coal
the Su
general
this and several other courts. See
preme Court overturned the Commission
498,
ly Eastern
v. Apfel,
Enters.
524 U.S.
er’s
to one former
504-16,
2131,
118
A. Fund a new fund replaced the 1947 with Mine the United Workers In royalty pro- on coal by perton financed “UMWA”) (the staged a nation- America Fund”). (the The 1950 duction “1950 to secure better in an effort wide strike Fund in that it Fund mirrored the 1947 for its benefits health and retirement any guarantee failed to coal miners vested President Tru- response, membership. benefits, leaving power to ad- instead mines, and his the coal man nationalized with the just or even terminate benefits into ne- the Interior entered Secretary of predecessor, trustees. Like its Fund’s L. President John with UMWA gotiations pay-as-you-go operated 1950 Fund on culminated negotiations These Lewis. basis, adjusting with the trustees benefit which Agreement, Krug-Lewis the historic budgetary fit constraints. As levels to the creation of and led to ended the strike such, provided guar- no the 1950 NBCWA trusts were These benefit benefit trusts. to miners. antee of lifetime benefits royalties by production financed Although the 1950 NBCWA was amend- They provided deductions. payroll times, ed several its structure remained retirement, death, disability, and health A essentially unchanged until 1974. com- *5 depen- miners and them benefits for coal trends, demographic which had bination of dents. benefits, the cost of and the increased Krug-Lewis Agree- Shortly after the Retirement In- passage Employee ment, were returned to the coal mines (“ERISA”), in Security come Act led control, and a and the UMWA private replacement to the of the 1950 Fund. The operators coal en- multiemployer group of Opera- UMWA and the Bituminous Coal Bituminous Coal into the National tered (“BCOA”) entered into a tors’ Association (the “1947 of 1947 Wage Agreement agreement, the 1974 This new NBCWA. NBCWA”). 1947 NBCWA estab- The Fund with agreement replaced the 1950 Amer- Mine lished the United Workers trusts, by new financed a four combination (the Retirement Fund ica Welfare and production royalties premiums of coal and Fund”), which was modeled on the “1947 by on hours worked coal miners.1 based trusts. The 1947 Krug-Lewis benefit trusts, these new Two of UMWA exclusively by royalties Fund financed (the Plan “1950 Benefit Benefit and Trust it provided and both production, from coal Plan”) and the 1974 Benefit Plan UMWA benefits to coal miners pension and health (the Plan”), pro- Trust “1974 Benefit The 1947 dependents. their NBCWA vided health benefits miners.2 The for any specific coal miners guarantee failed to coal 1950 Benefit Plan covered miners who benefits, the determination of ben- leaving retired, already prior were or who retired trustees of the 1947 efit levels to three 1, 1976, January depen- as well as their Fund. dents, while 1974 Benefit Plan covered miners who retired on or after Janu- coal the UMWA and acrimony between 1, 1976, ary dependents. as well as their persisted, over benefits operators the coal however, a signifi- in UMWA and the The 1974 NBCWA constituted 1950 the past from the in that it was the agreement a new cant break operators coal executed large operators 2. The 1950 Benefit Plan and 1974 Benefit 1. In number of coal BCOA, pension benefits. The organized which Plan did not cover themselves into funding separate primary representative of coal 1974 NBCWA established became the pensions. negotiations plan for with the UMWA. agreed to and executed agreement during between UMWA the 1980s in first health provide lifetime bene- attempts the BCOA to address these financial difficul- (unless a retirees and their widows fits for ties, they failed to render the 1950 and remarried). such, As the 1974 widow financially 1974 Benefit Plans viable. benefit vastly expanded costs. NBCWA insolvency the threat of in the 1950 benefits, in payable That increase com- and 1974 Benefit Plans led the UMWA to (e.g., a decline bined with other factors call lengthy a contentious and strike production, a rise miner retire- against the Company, Pittston Coal which ments, growth and the of health care only Secretary was settled after the costs) 1974 Benefit caused the 1950 and Labor intervened. As of that settle- problems. Plans to encounter financial ment, government the federal formed the led to the creation of the problems These Advisory Commission on United Mine NBCWA, which rendered each em- Workers America Retiree Health Bene- signed agreement who individu- ployer prepared fits. This Commission a report ally providing health care responsible multiple legislative that formulated solu- em- benefits for its own active and retired problems racking tions to financial Plans, The 1950 and 1974 Benefit ployees. Plans, 1950 and 1974 Benefit and its rec- were to be financed the coal which ommendations formed the basis for the party were to the 1978 operators who Coal Act. NBCWA, “or- thereafter covered retirees,” i.e., phaned retired miners whose
employers either had ceased B. longer party were no operations or *6 Act, Under the Coal the 1950 and 1974 represent- NBCWAs.3 The 1978 NBCWA merged newly Benefit Plans were into the liability a a operator ed shift coal from created Fund.4 26 Combined U.S.C. obligation, under “defined contribution” 9702(a). § Fund operators responsible which were for the Combined was de- payment production royalties, to a “de- signed provide to health and death benefits obligation, fined benefit” under which such dependents to certain miners and their operators obliged provide to suffi- Beneficiaries) were (i.e., who, prior July to specific cient monies to maintain benefits. 20, 1992, eligi- were receiving had been or ble to receive benefits under the 1950 and by the Despite changes wrought 9703(a), §§ 1974 Plans.5 26 Benefit U.S.C. NBCWA, the 1978 1950 and 1974 Benefit (b), (c), & (f). The Combined Fund is Plans continued to encounter financial by premiums financed annual assessed problems as costs increased and i.e., against “signatory operators,” op- coal continued to leave the coal busi- signed wage were who a coal Although ness. additional NBCWAs erators have orphaned simply, 3. Put retirees were miners mandates the continuation of the individual employers whose had left the unionized coal by signatory opera- plans health maintained mining industry, they long- either because no subsequent tors to the 1978 and NBCWAs. they er mined or because had com- provisions § 9711. These are not U.S.C. mining operations. menced non-union appeal. at issue in this 4. The Coal Act also established the 1992 such, provides 5.As the Combined Fund Bene- Plan, UMWA Benefit which covers certain worked under fits for retired miners who dependents coal miners and their who are not eligible an and for those miners' NBCWA eligible for benefits from the Combined Fund. dependents. addition, 9712(b). § the Act U.S.C. In 9706(b)(1)(A). Furthermore, § signatory op- 26 including those U.S.C.
agreement,6 longer in the coal who are no subjects persons erators the Coal Act related to 9701(b)(1), (b)(3), §§ 26 U.S.C. business. joint liability signatory and several for a (c)(1). calculated & premiums are Those 9704(a). § operator’s premiums. 26 U.S.C. eligible of the number of on the basis Act, person Under the shall be con- “[a] assigned particular oper- to a Beneficiaries person signato- to be a related a sidered to 9703(f) §§ & 9704. As we ator. 26 U.S.C. ry operator if that ... a person is member noted, responsibility for the as- have group corporations of the controlled ... rests with the signment of Beneficiaries signatory operator; which includes such Security. of Social Commissioner ... a any successor interest [or] 9706(a).7 § U.S.C. 9701(c)(2). person.” § [such] U.S.C. possibili- contemplates The Coal Act The Act spells types corporate out three that, ty engaging corporate in creative by relationships that constitute a “controlled restructuring, signatory operator might a group corporations.” The relevant rela- See liability. Cong. Rec. avoid its tionship purposes for our is known as a 1992) (Confer- (daily ed. Oct. S17604 “parent-subsidiary controlled group.” 26 Report). pre- ence order Committee 1563(a)(1).8 § a corporate U.S.C. Whether avoidance, designates the Act clude such entity a person” signatory is a “related closely certain related entities as “related operator entity’s is determined persons,” and it those entities for treats relationship signatory operator to the as of purposes of Fund Combined 9701(c)(2)(B). See employer. July § a though they single were 1992. 26 U.S.C. (3)Third, wage agreement assigned 6. A coal is either an NBCWA if the retiree is not un- operator (1) (2), agreement or paragraph signatory another that bound der or to the prevailing NBCWA. operator employed terms of which the coal indus- try industry long- retiree in the coal period any signatory er of time than other assignment provision 7. The of the Coal 9706(a) operator prior to the effective date of the provides found at of Title wage agreement. 1978 coal relevant as follows: Security *7 of Social shall [T]he Commissioner 1563(a)(1) 8.Section of Title 26 defines the industry assign ... each retiree who is coal parent-subsidiary group controlled as follows: eligible signatory opera- beneficiary an to a (1) Parent-subsidiary group.— controlled (or person respect with tor which related corporations One or more chains of are which) following remains in business in the through ownership connected stock with a order: (1) First, parent corporation common if— signatory operator which— (A) possessing (A) percent stock at least of signatory wage was a to the 1978 coal voting power the total combined agreement any wage of all subsequent coal or classes of stock entitled to vote agreement, or least and (B) percent of the total value signatory opera- of shares of all was the most recent industry corporations, classes of stock of employ tor to the coal retiree in each of except industry years. parent corporation, for the the coal for at least common (2) Second, assigned is owned ... one if the retiree is not or more of the other (1), signatory op- paragraph corporations; under (B) parent corporation erator which— common (A) signatory wage possessing per- a was to the 1978 coal owns ... stock at least 80 agreement subsequent wage voting any power or cent of the total combined of agreement, all classes of stock entitled to vote or at (B) signatory opera- percent was the most recent least 80 of the total value of shares industry employ tor to all the coal retiree in of classes of stock of at least one of the industry. corporations .... other Thus, person” provi- corporations Massey within the under the “related Act, corporations Group are therefore “related persons.” of the Coal sion NBCWA, Thus, well as signed an as Massey have never each Plaintiff is a “related that have never taken those person” respect with to each of the other liable for Bene- mining industry, may Plaintiffs, be three as well as to a host of effect, the Act treats the fits. In Coal Massey other coal within the for family single employer as a corporate Group, Mining Company such Omar Bene- assigning liability of for purpose (“Omar Mining”), Sprouse Creek Process- fact, specifically provides, fits. the Act Creek”), ing Company (“Sprouse and Big 9706(b)(1)(A), “[a]ny § in 26 U.S.C. Bear”).10 Mining Company (“Big Bear industry a coal retiree employment of the assignment provisions Pursuant to industry by signatory operator the coal Act, specifically the Coal 26 U.S.C. by any employment be treated as shall 9706(a)(3), the Commissioner made the operator.” to such persons related Massey Assignments challenge assigned here. The Commissioner A.T. C. Massey liability eighty-two for retired coal here, Massey plaintiff The lead A.T. miners, on relationship based its as the (“A.T.Massey”) par is the Company Coal (“Ben parent Company of Ben Creek Coal wholly corporate sub ent of several owned Creek”) corporate and Ben prede- Creek’s sidiaries, Massey other including the (Merrill Company, Gay cessors Coal Min- Plaintiffs,9 in coal engaged that are ing Company, Massey Mining Coal A.T. operations. Massey See Coal Co. Company). similarly The Commissioner Union, UMWA, 799 F.2d Int’l assigned Massey liability for Coal Services (4th Cir.1986) that A.T. (observing miners, two retired coal based on its rela- single pro and its affiliates function as “a tionship Eagle to Ben Peerless Creek. sales, entity transportation duction with forty- a total assigned coordinated from Mas and distribution five retired coal miners who had worked sey’s headquarters”). Richmond Company, which for Peters Creek Coal that the stipulated Plaintiffs have (the Fi- merged Eagle with Peerless family “Massey Massey corporate nally, assigned liability the Commissioner they part, of which are a consti Group”), retired corporations” to Tennessee Consolidated for 204 group tutes a “controlled directly employed.11 coal miners that it had meaning within the Coal Company; Mining Mas- sell Coal and Vesta 9. The three Plaintiffs are: Fork other Company. Services, (“Massey sey Inc. Coal Ser- *8 ("Peer- vices”), Eagle Company Peerless Coal instances, many the Commissioner as- 11.In Eagle”), less and Tennessee Consolidated signed liability for the to the Consolidated”). ("Tennessee Company Coal coal miners who were deceased Benefits of began providing the Combined Fund when Mining, Sprouse 10. In addition to Omar cases, February In such no benefits in Bear, Creek, Big other members of the against premiums were assessed Massey Group appellants Charles include PM Plaintiffs; assignments were those made Compa- Company; Rocky Hollow Coal Coal a min- demonstrate the basis on which Douglas ny; Company; Pocahon- Dehue Coal dependents assigned to eligible er's were Corporation; Hopkins Moreover, tas Coal Creek Coal of Massey Plaintiffs. the number Company; Majestic Company; Coal Joboner premiums have been beneficiaries for whom Mining, Incorporated; Performance Coal oc- declined due to mortalities assessed has Thus, curring most Company; Vantage Mining Company; Rus- since 1993. 1999—the Plaintiffs, mining industry Ten- in 1965. Among assign- These signed has an nessee Consolidated ments made Eastern payments liable for NBCWA, doing so in 1960. last Other fifty to the Combined of Fund more than however, Massey Group, members of million dollars. brought Eastern suit NBCWAs, subsequent signed the 1974 or Commissioner, against challenging (which Mining signed such as Omar assignments contending these that 1981, 1974, 1978, NBCWAs), and 1984 they violated the Takings and Due Process (which 1974, signed the Sprouse Creek of Fifth Clauses Amendment. NBCWAs), 1978, Big and 1981 Bear a Although majority upheld of the Court (which signed 1978 and challenge assignments, Eastern’s to the NBCWAs). the Court offered no unified rationale for O’Connor, its holding. writing Justice
D.
herself,
Rehnquist,
Chief Justice
and Jus-
enactment,
Act
After its
the Coal
was
Thomas,
tices Scalia and
concluded that
judicial
in various
challenged
proceedings.
the Coal
assignments
liability
Act’s
many
legal
of these
Although
assaults
Eastern
an
represented
unconstitutional
unsuccessful,
exception
a notable
were
was
Enters.,
taking. Eastern
tiffs and
defen- both
APA,
the Constitution and the
then-
dants,
Takings
violates neither
the
nor
appeal
single
turns on a
issue—whether
Clause;
they
Due Process
sought an
assignments
those
are
un-
unconstitutional
injunction requiring the counterclaim de- der
Enterprises,16
Before
canwe
premiums
the
pay
fendants to
due the
question, however,
evaluate this
we must
Combined Fund
the Act.
under
first ascertain the holding of Eastern En-
19, 2001,
By
July
opinion
its
the dis-
terprises.
summary
trict court awarded
judgment to
Commissioner,
Fund,
the Combined
A.
Trastees,
and the Fund’s
concluding that
Massey Assignments
did not contra-
established,
It
is well
holding
vene
Court’s
Eastern Enter-
States,
Marks v.
188,
United
430 U.S.
97
prises.
Co.,
A.T.
Coal
Massey
Inc. v.
990,
(1977),
S.Ct.
237
liability
to
for the
ally
subjected
be
ex
plurality
theory that
process
due
what it
we
determine
Assignments,
must
Compare
to address.
declined
pressly
“substantially
498,
position
to be in a
means
U.S.
Apfel,
v.
524
Enters.
Eastern
doing,
that of
so
to
Eastern.
they stand
opinion em-
plurality
O’Connor’s
Justice
respect
with
to Eastern
tion
of Eastern’s
that the
phasized
magnitude
Kennedy’s
Justice
both
severely dispro-
liability
retroactive
Estate,
Real
Unity
concurrence.”17
rise to
giving
to the conduct
portionate
659;
Bitu
also
see
Association
F.3d
that,
plurality observed
liability. The
Contractors,
F.3d at 1254-55.
minous
leeway
Congress has “considerable
while
it
and that
legislation,”
to fashion economic
Therefore,
wheth-
to determine
order
under eer-
retroactive
may impose
may constitution-
Massey Plaintiffs
er
Estate,
("[W]e are
at 659
Unity
178 F.3d
Real
Enterprises does not
17. We note that Eastern
against the
vote
the five-four
bound to follow
that the East-
legal proposition
for the
stand
Eastern.’’). Nor can Eastern
takings claim in
Coal Act contra-
assignments under the
ern
proposition that
the Eastern
for the
court
stand
Takings
the district
Clause. As
vene the
observed,
assignments are
majori-
unconstitutional
properly
[a]
"it
clear
is
Clause,
i.e.,
only Justice
because
Due Process
Enterprises,
ty
[in
of the Court
Eastern
It is
a conclusion.
Kennedy arrived at such
Kennedy
be-
dissenters]
four
on the
this absence
consensus
assessment of
and its
that the Coal
lieved
apply
Enter-
prompts us
taking
Court that
within
not
premiums, did
constitute
operators that stand in
prises
A.T.
Amendment."
the ambit
Fifth
Massanari,
substantially
to that of East-
Co.,
position
identical
Inc.
(E.D.Va.2001);
ern.
see also
F.Supp.2d
*12
circumstances, an
tain
economic regulation
2.
may
constitute an impermissi
nonetheless
Kennedy’s
Justice
separate opinion simi-
imposes
ble
“if it
taking
severe retroactive
larly relies on the fact that Eastern left
a limited
liability
parties
on
class
that
the
industry prior to the pivot-
anticipated
liability,
have
could not
al 1974 NBCWA.
Justice Kennedy,
liability
the extent of the
is substantially
though, emphasized the unfairness of hold-
disproportionate
parties’
experi
ing Eastern retroactively liable for a bene-
528-29,
Enters.,
ence.” Eastern
at
U.S.
fits crisis that it
helped
had not
to precipi-
Applying
S.Ct. 2131.
that observa
tate. He observed that
legal
our
tradition
Eastern,
tion to
noted that it
long
has
disfavored retroactive economic
was the 1974 NBCWA that “first sug
legislation,
legislation
such
because
“can
gested]
industry
an
commitment to the
destroy certainty
reasonable
and secu-
funding of lifetime health benefits for both
rity
very
which are the
objects of property
family
retirees and their
members.” Id. at
548,
ownership.” Id. at
related status to coal amined Eastern’s experience isolation. signed who the 1974 and subse- Id. quent bearing NBC WAs has no on wheth-
er position “substantially their is identical” Just as the Eastern Court deferred They to that of Eastern. observe Congress’s statutory delineation of enti wholly EACC, Eastern’s owned subsidiary, ties under the Coal this Court like operated in coal mining business dur- wise must parties take the as Act ing post period, the critical and that it defines them. The Coal Act designates signed the 1974 subsequent NBCWAs. Eastern, by virtue of its sale of its coal They concede that Eastern sold EACC mining subsidiary prior to July 1987, and that the Coal because Act deter- entity. contrast, discrete By the Act mines person related status July *14 as of gathers Massey the together Plaintiffs 1992, Eastern and EACC are statutory not with the other of the Massey members persons.” “related The Massey Plaintiffs Group purposes determining Com assert, however, that the fact that Eastern liability. bined Fund Regardless of how statutory had no person” “related is irrele- members of the might Group prefer to be vant to our constitutional inquiry. The viewed, has, Congress for our purposes, Massey point Plaintiffs out that the July effectively designated these “related per 20, 1992, statutory date for the determina- sons” as a single entity legal under the tion person of related status represents an Coal Act. Consequently, in evaluating arbitrary by choice Congress. key The whether Massey the Plaintiffs’ experiences point, assert, the Plaintiffs is that cor- coal industry are substantially iden porate relationship between Eastern and tical to those of may we not post EACC period NBCWA artificially segregate plaintiffs those from functionally was the same as that between the other members Massey of the Group. Massey Plaintiffs and their related Rather, we must analyze experiences (such persons Mining as Omar and Big of Massey Group persons,” as “related Bear) who, EACC, like signed the 1974 i.e, a whole. subsequent and NBCWAs. Accordingly, Massey Plaintiffs maintain that then- Looking thus through the lens of the experiences in the mining coal industry are Coal Act’s framework, “related persons” “substantially identical” to those of East- we find that the Massey Plaintiffs are ern. of an entity whose experiences in the coal mining industry are Massey substantially
The
not
Plaintiffs
iden-
overlook the fact
tical to those of
that
the Eastern
Eastern.
Eastern
En-
plurality ex-
terprises, the
pressly
Court
deferred to the
determined that it
delineation of
enti-
ties
Congress
that
unconstitutional
subject
chose to
operator
make in
coal
fifty
Act.
that,
million dollars in
acknowledged
retroactive liabili-
because
ty
Eastern sold
when
prior
operator
EACC
July
had engaged exclu-
20, 1992, “the
assign[ed]
Act
sively
pre 1974
activities,
Eastern re-
mining
sponsibility [only] for benefits
and
relating to
when it had
to,
neither assented
nor
itself,
miners that
EACC,
Eastern
not
em-
contributed
of,
to the foundering
the ex-
ployed.”
Enters.,
panded,
post
U.S.
1974 NBCWA retirement
cial post in the participated
ed to Eastern, several Unlike regime.
NBCWA (such as Group
members Bear) signed the Big Mining
Omar Attribut- NBCWAs. subsequent of those experiences
ing employment the Mas- rest of to the signatory VETER OF CONFEDERATE SONS per- Act’s “related the Coal Group sey INCORPORATED, a Tennessee ANS, —as do—and us to require provisions by Corporation, son” its Commander-in- “substantially Griffin; Virginia is operator an Di Patrick J. mindful Chief experiences if its Confederate Veter vision of Sons of to Eastern identical” Corpora Virginia ans, Incorporated, a confined industry are Robert W. tion, its Commander era, position find the we 1974 NBCWA pre Plaintiffs-Appellees, Barbour, Sr., easily distinguish- Because of Eastern. from that able *15 in a position do not stand Massey Plaintiffs THE VIRGINIA OF COMMISSIONER of to that “substantially identical” MOTOR VEHI DEPARTMENT OF of assignments the Commissioner’s CLES, capacity, Defen in official his not unconsti- are Massey Plaintiffs dant-Appellant, Enterprises. tutional Virginia, whose of V. Commonwealth enacted and will agents and officers reasons, the chal- foregoing For behalf, enforce, Va.Code Ann. on its to the Mas- of the lenges Gilmore, III, 46.2-746.22; as James S. merit, and are without sey Assignments of the Commonwealth of Governor court. affirm the district we capacity; Virginia, his official Secretary Ybarra, of the Shirley AFFIRMED. Transportation Department of Virginia, her official ca State NIEMEYER, concurring Judge, Circuit pacity, Defendants. dissenting judgment and in part No. 01-1242. part: Appeals, States United Court find that would I Fourth Circuit. to A.T. pensions liability for coal workers’ Inc., Massey Coal Company, Sept. Inc., Eagle Coal Services, and Peerless Charlottesville, VA, Aden, Henry Steven by virtue are unconstitutional Company Roanoke, VA, Strickland, Patrick Arthur in Eastern holding Court’s Supreme Plaintiff-Appellee. 498, 118 U.S. Apfel, Hurd, Jeffrey Spenc- A. (1998). Henry With William 141 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Randolph Landry, Allen er, Paige Alison I re- would assignments, to those respect