This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
This case concerns Philip Morris USA’s challenge to an Oregon jury instruction on punitive damages in a lawsuit brought by Mayola Williams.
The petitioner argues that the Oregon courts erred in not applying the Supreme Court’s State Farm precedent after the case was remanded.
Several Justices asked clarifying questions about the proposed instruction, focusing on whether jurors can consider harm to others without punishing for that harm.
- [1] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 27
- [3] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 3
- [4] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 5
- [5] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 42
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the case was remanded to the Oregon courts to reconsider their decision in light of the Supreme Court’s State Farm ruling.
The central issue is how juries should be instructed to account for the extent of harm to others when assessing punitive damages.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
The petitioner argues that the Oregon courts failed to apply the State Farm precedent after the remand.
The petitioner contends that punitive damages should reflect the harm suffered by all Oregon smokers, similar to a class‑action punishment.
According to Mr. Frey, the petitioner warns that allowing a potentially aberrational verdict to pre‑empt the work of other juries undermines the judicial process.
Robert S. Peck argues that the proposed jury instruction would force jurors to consider the harm to others, which Philip Morris claims they cannot do.
According to Mr. PECK, mr. Peck outlines factors for assessing liability, including likelihood of serious harm, defendant’s awareness, profitability, duration, conduct upon discovery, and financial condition.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner was referring to “number 34.”
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter expressed concern that the instruction could change the outcome of the case.
Justice Scalia asked what specifically was wrong with the proposed instruction.
According to Justice BREYER, justice Breyer noted that many states have similar factors when assessing punitive damages.
Justice Stevens asked about the distinction between taking into account the extent of harm to others and punishing for that harm.
According to Justice ALITO, justice Alito questioned whether juries can understand an instruction that allows consideration of harm to others without punishing for that harm.
The Court noted that sixty percent of a statutory award goes to Oregon’s crime‑victims fund, making the State a judgment creditor.
- [1] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 26
- [4] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 39
- [5] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 42
- [7] 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdf, p. 37
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9a55b86303af18b77752-r1-993aa0c4ef6b77e2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.