Should the Oregon Supreme Court have Considered State Law Issues on Remand?
In Philip Morris USA v. Williams (“Williams II”), the U.S. Supreme Court remanded this case to the Oregon Supreme Court and instructed it to apply the constitutional standard it had just established. See 549 U.S. 346 (2007). On remand, however, the Oregon court found that Philip Morris USA Inc. (“Philip Morris”) had forfeited its constitutional claim by procedurally defaulting under state law. See Brief for Petitioner, Philip Morris USA Inc. at 9–10. In light of the Supreme Court’s instructions, Petitioner Philip Morris contends that the Oregon court acted illegitimately in applying state law to bar its constitutional rights. See id. at 14. Respondent Mayola Williams (“Williams”) counters that the Oregon court “legitimately considered state law issues on remand” because the Supreme Court made state law considerations “part of the new constitutional standard.” Brief for Respondent, Mayola Williams at 44. The constitutional standard prohibits juries from punishing a defendant for harm to
