--It was brought as a class action on behalf of 32,600 Alaskan fishermen.

--ExxonMobil (nyse: XOM - news - people ) has already paid more than $3.5 billion in fines, clean-up costs and other legal settlements relating to the spill.

A jury in an Alaska federal district court had originally awarded $5 billion in punitive damages, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cut in half in a December 2006 decision. The new figure was five times the economic damages of $500 million that the jury awarded to the class. The Supreme Court is the final avenue of appeal, and its decision could have implications that go beyond Exxon, and affect the wider corporate world.

Business groups have been prominent advocates of tort reform, and had hoped that the Valdez action would provide the Court with a further opportunity to circumscribe punitive damages awards. Yet the decision's impact is likely to be limited:

--By agreeing only to consider narrow issues of maritime law raised in this case, the Court signaled that for the time being, it is content to leave the current punitive damages framework alone.

--The Court could decide to expand this initial limitation and consider larger punitive damages issues, but in that event, would allow the attorneys involved additional time to brief these issues.

Over the last two decades, the Court has extended what until relatively recently had been a novel legal theory: that the U.S. Constitution imposes limitations on punitive damages awards. This departed from the then-precedent, in which the Court had declined to enunciate any constitutional or other legal limits on these awards:

--BMW case. In BMW of North America vs. Gore (1996), the Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause imposed limitations on punitive damages awards. In the past decade, the Court has further defined and refined this framework.

--Capping damages. In State Farm Insurance vs. Campbell (2003), the Court declined to set a 'hard cap' on the level of punitive damages that would be "excessive" on constitutional grounds. Yet the Court noted that, in most cases, punitive damages that exceed compensatory damages by more than a single digit ratio violate due process requirements. It suggested that a four-to-one ratio, while not "binding," should be regarded as "instructive."

--Reducing awards. In February, the Court in Philip Morris USA vs. Williams sent back for further review a jury award of $79.5 million in punitive damages (where $821,000 of compensatory damages had also been awarded) in product liability litigation over the death of an individual smoker. The Court decided that a jury's punitive damages award set in part on the basis of a desire to punish a defendant for harming 'non-parties' to the lawsuit--in this case, for injuries to smokers other than the plaintiff--contravenes the Constitution's due process clause. Yet in a confusing twist, the court determined that harm to others could still be considered when the jury assesses the "degree of reprehensibility" of a defendant's conduct.

Constitutional jurisprudence is not the only area in which significant changes have made it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring successful claims against (usually corporate) defendants. Several legal reform initiatives have occurred over the past few years, at both the federal and state levels, which taken together have also contributed to this trend.

Yet there are signs that the tort reform movement has peaked:

--Democratic resurgence. Following a series of successful efforts to change state laws to make lawsuits more difficult, and to elect state judges who would endorse pro-business legal interpretations, consumer advocates and trial lawyers who favor more plaintiff-friendly policies were boosted by the Democratic party's victory in the November 2006 elections.

--Congressional resistance. Advocates of further 'civil justice reform' are facing a much more skeptical Congress. Congressional leaders have linked disparate areas, such as widespread recalls of Chinese products, and the subprime mortgage crisis, to the failure of the relevant federal regulators to provide effective monitoring and oversight. Congressional leaders are currently ill-disposed to any further limitations on the ability of plaintiffs to bring lawsuits when the federal government has failed to regulate effectively. Some lawmakers may be open to expanding federal legal liability into new areas.

Former users of withdrawn painkiller Vioxx will be eligible for a piece of manufacturer Merck & Co.'s $4.85 billion nationwide settlement if they meet strict criteria meant to weed out people with bogus claims. They must:

-- Have had a claim filed by Thursday, the day before the deal was announced.

-- Already have medical documentation that they suffered a heart attack or an ischemic stroke; people who had mini-strokes or hemorrhagic strokes are not eligible.

-- Have proof they received at least 30 Vioxx pills.

-- Have received Vioxx pills recently enough to indicate they likely took the painkiller within two weeks of their injury.

-- Be legal U.S. residents alleging their injury occurred in the United States.

-- Promptly register their claims after being contacted by their current attorney.

An attorney for a property owner where Mattel once operated a factory in Beaverton, Ore., argued that the courts should step in and correct mistaken decisions by arbitrators.

Arbitration is often regarded by the business community as a cost-saving, timesaving substitute for lawsuits. But the risk is that the losing side cannot seek relief in the courts except in limited circumstances.

In the fight between Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, the two sides agreed in advance that a federal court could review an arbitrator's decision for possible errors of law. A federal judge overturned the arbitrator's decision, making the property owner the winner in the Mattel case.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested expanded judicial review is appropriate in this instance, pointing to the fact that the two sides negotiated a contract with court review as one of its provisions.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia suggested Mattel might be seeking more latitude than the law allows for parties to negotiate expanded judicial review in arbitration cases.

The American Arbitration Association says a cornerstone principle of federal law is that arbitrators' awards are final and binding.

If parties to a dispute are allowed to engage in expanded judicial review, arbitration will become a prelude to lawsuits instead of a substitute, the association said in court papers.

Many industries have an interest in the case, including the wireless communications industry which has filed papers in support of an expanded role for the courts.

The wireless industry says that in the absence of court review, parties may decide they are unwilling to "bet the company" on arbitration. The result would be a decline in the number of disputes sent to arbitration and an added workload for already-overburdened courts.

In the case before the justices, Hall Street Associates wants Mattel to pay for cleanup at a contaminated factory site that Mattel leased from Hall Street.

The toy company and the property owner agreed to submit the case to arbitration, signing an agreement allowing either side to seek court review of the decision.

The property that Mattel leased from Hall Street Associates contains high levels of the industrial solvent TCE used to degrease metal parts.

Mattel did not contaminate the grounds with the hazardous chemical and an arbitrator initially ruled the toy manufacturer did not have to pay for the cleanup.

The case then began a six-year odyssey through the federal court system.

A judge said the arbitrator's decision "defies logic." The arbitrator responded by reversing himself and awarding Hall Street $584,000.

This prompted another trip to the courts and ultimately an order by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reinstate the original arbitration award in favor of Mattel.

For some, a Senate committee's investigation into six well-known evangelical ministries is long overdue, a needed check on preachers living lavish lifestyles built with their donors' generosity.

But even among those who welcome the scrutiny, there was concern Wednesday over government intrusion into religion, more red tape in the name of transparency and undue burdens on preachers and churches who play strictly by the rules.

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, faxed letters Monday to a half-dozen evangelical mega-ministries requesting information about compensation, board oversight and perks — from luxury oceanside homes to flights on private jets to opulent spending on office furniture.

The organizations are not legally required to respond. Some have released statements pledging to cooperate, others have hedged and all have emphasized their commitment to following applicable tax laws.

The IRS requires that pastors' compensation be "reasonable," a figure set by collecting comparable salaries and weighing factors such as church size and a pastor's value to the congregation. IRS rules prevent pastors and other insiders from excessive personal gain through their tax-exempt work.

Marvin Olasky, editor of World, an influential conservative Christian magazine, credited Grassley for racheting up the pressure on ministries he believes are far too secretive about how donations are spent.

"These organizations should be pressured to disclose information," Olasky said. "If glasnost worked in the Soviet Union, it can work in relation to these ministries."

Olasky, however, cautioned that "hard cases make bad law." Echoing others, Olasky said governmental action should be a last resort and that the Christian community and media needs to press organizations to be more open.

The six ministries in the inquiry share Pentecostal theology, a strong television presence and a "prosperity gospel" message emphasizing material rewards for the faithful. They are:

_ Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries of Tampa, Fla.

_ Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas;

_ David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo.;

_ Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries of Newark, Texas;

_ Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long Ministries of Lithonia, Ga.;

_ Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Ga.

These kinds of huge, non-denominational operations are like smaller churches in that they aren't required to publicly disclose their finances.

Scott Thumma, a megachurch expert at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, said they require even greater scrutiny because they lack denominational oversight and have a penchant for unchecked lavish spending.

"If this attention makes these ministries more accountable to donors, it's probably a positive step forward," Thumma said. "At the same time, it does pose challenges about what is the role of government in how a church spends its money and who is accountable. These are probably legitimate concerns by those pastors watching from outside."

Some pastors, Thumma said, might be hesitant to speak out because "they are looking at that slippery slope and don't want to be seen as advocating for the government getting involved in the roles of church."

Dollar released a statement saying questions raised by Grassley's inquiry "could affect the privacy of every community church in America."

Others question whether the halls of Congress are the appropriate setting for the debate.

"I do wonder why a Senate committee would be doing this when the IRS is perfectly capable of enforcing its own rules — and does so frequently," said James Bopp, a nonprofit and tax lawyer who represents several large evangelical organizations but none of those under investigation.

Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at the evangelical media ministry Focus on the Family, said he was disappointed that Grassley thinks an investigation is necessary. Minnery called existing tax rules "vigorous."

In an interview Wednesday, Grassley said his committee has jurisdiction over nonprofits and oversight over the IRS. He said it's unclear whether the IRS is doing enough to police Christian nonprofits or whether existing guidelines go far enough — questions that are part of the inquiry.

"We're going to let these ministries speak for themselves," he said. "Hopefully, it comes back everything's OK, but the allegations we've heard about raise questions."

Grassley also said the inquiry will not delve into doctrinal issues, and that he understands church-state separation concerns. At the same time, he said religious nonprofit groups should be expected to follow rules governing nonprofits just as secular groups are.

"I'm hoping these organizations clean up their own act if there's something wrong," Grassley said.

An IRS spokeswoman declined comment on the Grassley investigation, which could lead in several directions: public hearings, more ministries being drawn in, and potential penalties ranging from back taxes to loss of tax-exempt status.

The evangelical nonprofit world already polices itself through the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, which requires members to annually submit audited financial statements and answer other transparency questions. But membership is voluntary, and none of the groups under investigation belong.

IRS audits and inquiries into nonprofits, meanwhile, are confidential. Even if a Christian ministry is punished, donors don't learn about it unless the organization under scrutiny makes it public.

"I see this as a kind of a tug of war of interests," said Rodney Pitzer, managing director of research with MinistryWatch.org, which grades Christian groups on financial accountability.

"On one side you have a ton of good ministries out there who want to be unshackled from red tape and government bureaucracy. In that midst unfortunately are wolves in sheeps' clothing."

The question is whether a particular complaint form, the intake questionnaire, constitutes a formal discrimination charge that can serve as the basis for a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA).

Under the ADEA, employees must wait 60 days after filing a formal EEOC complaint to bring a lawsuit against their employers. The rule is designed to give the employer sufficient time to investigate the charges and perhaps reach an out-of-court settlement with the employee.

Almost half of EEOC complaints are filed by small business employees, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, which filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Federal Express.

In 2006 the EEOC received more than 75,000 discrimination charges, only 5% of which had reasonable cause to go to court, according to Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB's legal foundation.

Harned argued that U.S. employers would face a surge in discrimination lawsuits if the justices decide that intake questionnaires qualify as discrimination charges.

"There has to be a filtering process or small business owners will be inundated with litigation," she said.

In December 2001, a Federal Express (Charts, Fortune 500) courier named Patricia Kennedy filed an EEOC intake questionnaire claiming that FedEx was in the habit of improperly firing older employees who did not meet the company's hourly delivery quotas.

The EEOC did not follow up on Kennedy's complaint. In April 2002, Kennedy and several other older employees, including Paul Holowecki, filed a class action suit against Federal Express. In May 2002, Kennedy belatedly submitted a formal discrimination complaint, known as a Form 5, to the EEOC.

A district court threw the case out on the grounds that plaintiffs were legally required to submit the Form 5 before filing suit against their employers. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that an intake questionnaire could indeed be considered a formal charge.

At yesterday's hearing, the justices concentrated on the issue of how the EEOC handles discrimination complaints. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that employees should not be held responsible for the EEOC's complex and often contradictory regulations.

"I don't understand the leap from government incompetence to the plaintiff losing," the chief justice told Federal Express advocate Connie Lensing.

The plaintiffs' advocate, David Rose, argued that the validity of a discrimination charge should not be a function of the form on which it was filed.

But Justice Antonin Scalia responded that employees were responsible for reading the forms that they filled out. "You can't run a system for people who are illiterate," Scalia said. But he also criticized the EEOC's procedures for handling discrimination complaints. "The problem is the EEOC," Scalia said. "What kind of agency is this?"

It may be months before the Supreme Court rules on Holowecki, but the outcome could force the EEOC to change its procedures for all discrimination complaints, including those that arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Title VII, which covers discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

"The decision in Holowecki will likely resolve the many inconsistencies among federal circuit courts of appeal on the issue of whether an EEOC intake questionnaire may constitute a charge of discrimination under the ADEA," said Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi School of Law, in his American Bar Association preview of the case.

"Depending on the breadth of the holding, the case may also answer this same question for related federal employment discrimination laws."

"We have answered every question, provided every requested piece of information and worked with you in good faith," he said in prepared testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Lawmakers have accused the company of holding back information in its role regarding the arrest of Chinese journalist Shi Tao. The Chinese government accused Shi of leaking state secrets and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Yang, who became CEO this summer of the company he co-founded, also said Yahoo is committed to doing the right thing and protecting human rights globally.

"We are a company founded on openness, the exchange of information and user trust, and we believe deeply in free expression and privacy," he said.

Michael Callahan, the Internet company's general counsel, is expected to repeat a public apology he made last week regarding his failure to turn over new information to Congress in October 2006, months after he initially testified to two House subcommittees about Yahoo's role in the case.

The foreign affairs committee's chairman, California Democrat Tom Lantos, doesn't buy Yahoo's explanation of why it previously provided incomplete information to Congress.

"Yahoo claims that this is just one big misunderstanding. Let me be clear — this was no misunderstanding," Lantos said in a statement prepared for the hearing.

"This was inexcusably negligent behavior at best, and deliberately deceptive behavior at worst," Lantos said.