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
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Exxon Shipping Co. (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Dellinger (Exxon), according to Mr. Dellinger (Exxon), the Court has never affirmed an award of punitive damages under maritime law, nor held them available for unintentional conduct or oil spills.
According to Exxon, exxon recognized that a line must be drawn somewhere in assessing liability.
According to Exxon, exxon has already paid $3.4 billion out of pocket for the spill; after tax credits and insurance the net amount is under $2 billion, which the petitioners argue is a substantial deterrent.
Baker (Respondent)
According to Mr. Fisher (Respondents), according to Mr. Fisher (Respondents), it is appropriate to expose the corporation to punitive damages based on the reckless acts of an individual.
According to Petitioners, by definition this is a mandatory punitive class, the only time Exxon will face punitive damages.
According to Petitioners, the Ninth Circuit held Exxon could be liable for $2.5 billion because Captain Hazelwood left the deck against company policy.
According to Petitioners, compensatory damages were $400–$500 times the amount considered substantial by the Ninth Circuit.
According to Petitioners, the punitive award is roughly 500 times what was considered substantial in State Farm.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked how the Court’s settled line of decisions regarding punitive damages in maritime law was reached.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a shareholder must be driving the ship before liability can be assessed.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired whether the railroad case dealt with respondeat‑superior and distinguished between regular and managerial employees.
Justice Stevens asked whether hiring an obviously incompetent crew member could justify punitive damages.
Justice Kennedy asked what additional factors, beyond due‑process cases, should be considered in a punitive‑damages framework for maritime law.
Justice Kennedy asked whether a managerial agent is liable if he violated express instructions from an employer.
Justice Scalia asked about the relevance of the Clean Water Act to the case.
The district court held that the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (TAPAA) controls spills of trans‑Alaska oil and its savings clause expressly preserves the ability to seek punitive damages.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted that the case was submitted after oral argument.
The court recorded that the case was submitted at 11:38 a.m.
- [1] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 6
- [3] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 12
- [4] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 14
- [5] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 30
- [6] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 43
- [7] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 60
- [8] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 64
- [9] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 82
- [10] 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdf, p. 82
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.
- 018d4a22846a10d68262-r1-06abfc1919250924.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.