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
The case concerns a dispute over whether an Oregon state court correctly applied the Supreme Court’s constitutional standard on a procedural due‑process issue.
The parties argue about the appropriate jury instruction standards and the limits on punitive damages.
Background and question before the Court
According to Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Philip Morris USA Inc., the Supreme Court previously vacated an Oregon decision for applying the wrong constitutional standard and remanded with directions to apply the correct standard.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a state supreme court can resolve a case on an alternate state‑law ground consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Justice Breyer asked what elements must be present in the federal‑mandated instruction and whether the state court gave the essence of that instruction.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Philip Morris USA Inc.) Position
According to Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Philip Morris USA Inc., the petitioner argues that the Oregon court failed to follow the Supreme Court’s directions and did not address the constitutional issue.
According to Mr. Shapiro, the petitioner contends that the “correct in all respects” rule applied in Alabama for 60 years is pointless and should not be used.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner asserts that the request for instruction was inconsistent with the Oregon statute, citing the petition’s page 48a.
The petitioner argues that punitive damages should be limited to $100 million as the zone of reasonableness.
Respondent (Mayola Williams Personal Representative) Position
According to Robert S. Peck, the respondent argues that the Supreme Court’s constitutional mandate allows states flexibility in devising procedures to address procedural due‑process issues and does not intend to federalize the state process.
According to Robert S. Peck, the respondent emphasizes that a significant risk of juror confusion and a proper request must exist before imposing procedural requirements.
What happened at oral argument
According to Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Philip Morris USA Inc., mr. Shapiro (for the petitioner) argued that the Oregon court failed to follow the Supreme Court’s directions and did not address the constitutional issue.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether a state supreme court can resolve a case on an alternate state‑law ground consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Justice Stevens asked why the issue was “an exercise in futility.”
According to Robert S. Peck, robert S. Peck (for the respondent) explained that the Supreme Court’s mandate permits state flexibility and does not require federal control over the procedural request process.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer inquired about the elements of the federal‑mandated instruction and whether the state court provided its essence.
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.
- 2d066488a24d2a5e6b19-r1-3c84f40bf6562a69.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.