Inc. v. Gore BMW of North America

Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. "Today," he said, "we see the latest manifestation of the Court's recent and increasingly insistent "concern about punitive damages that `run wild.'" This, however, was not a matter of the Court's concern, the justice stated, since the Constitution makes no reference to that particular manner. Furthermore, Scalia found the Court's precedent for its judgment lacking. Such precedents were relatively recent, and had occurred in rapid succession over a short period of time such that they were "too shallowly rooted to justify the Court's recent undertaking."

Nor did the Court offer anything useful, in Scalia's words, to lower courts whereby they might make more fair judgments of punitive damages in the future. Alabama was acting fully within its powers in the judgment, and the case did not properly warrant the Court's attention. Scalia concluded by stating, "By today's logic, every dispute as to evidentiary sufficiency in a state civil suit poses a question of constitutional moment, subject to review in this Court. That is a stupefying proposition."

Justice Ginsburg likewise dissented, in an opinion in which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined. In her view, the Court was "unwisely ventur[ing] into territory traditionally within the States' domain." The states themselves already had measures in place to deal with such matters, and as evidence she produced a long list of state regulations of punitive damage awards. In the case of Alabama, its own supreme court had put still further controls on the levels of punitive damages, and therefore its judgment should be allowed to stand.