On October 24, 2006, ACS hosted a press briefing on Philip Morris USA v. Williams, a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the constitutional standard for awarding punitive damages for corporate wrongdoing. Advocates and academics presented perspectives on both sides of the issue on the role of the jury in determining such awards generally, as well as the applicability of constitutional limits on the punitive damage award against Philip Morris USA in this case. Panelists discussed issues including: whether punitive damages exist only to punish wrongdoers for conduct involving parties before the court, or whether they should also serve to deter against future such conduct involving other parties; whether the tobacco industry's efforts to withhold evidence and increase litigation costs should inform the punitive damages award in this case, and the role of reprehensibility in justifying punitive damages generally; the validity of concerns regarding the costs of litigation and the role of judges in reviewing large damage awards; and the perspectives of these various issues held by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the case on October 31.

The panel featured, from left to right:

• Neil Vidmar, Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology, Duke Law School
• Moderator Peter Rubin, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
• William B. Schultz, Zuckerman Spader LLP, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General
• Theodore Frank, Resident Fellow and Director of the American Enterprise Institute Liability Project
• ACS has created a resources page on several Supreme Court cases for the 2006-2007 October term. The resources page contains ACSBlog previews of the cases, streaming video of pre-argument panel discussions by experts, and links to the Court's opinions.