THOMAS, J., dissenting substantive limits on a State's lawmaking power. See, e. g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 544 (1977) (White, J., dissenting); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 540-541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). It remains true, however, that the Court should be "reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended." Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). Judicial restraint counsels us to "exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field." Ibid. Today the majority ignores that sound advice when it announces its new rule of substantive law. Essentially for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Oregon, I would affirm its judgment. JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. I join JUSTICE GINSBURG's dissent in full. I write separately to reiterate my view that "the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards.'" State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408, 429-430 (2003) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U. S. 424, 443 (2001) (THOMAS, J., concurring)). It matters not that the Court styles today's holding as "procedural" because the "procedural" rule is simply a confusing implementation of the substantive due process regime this Court has created for punitive damages. See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 26–27 (1991) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) (“In 1868 ... punitive damages were undoubtedly an established part of the American common law of torts. It is... clear that no particular procedures were deemed necessary to circumscribe a jury's discretion regarding the award of such damages, or their amount"). Today's opinion proves once again that this Court's punitive damages jurisprudence is "insusceptible of principled application." BMW of North GINSBURG, J., dissenting America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559, 599 (1996) (SCALIA, J., joined by THOMAS, J., dissenting). JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. The purpose of punitive damages, it can hardly be denied, is not to compensate, but to punish. Punish for what? Not for harm actually caused "strangers to the litigation," ante, at 353, the Court states, but for the reprehensibility of defendant's conduct, ante, at 355. "[C]onduct that risks harm to many," the Court observes, "is likely more reprehensible than conduct that risks harm to only a few." Ante, at 357. The Court thus conveys that, when punitive damages are at issue, a jury is properly instructed to consider the extent of harm suffered by others as a measure of reprehensibility, but not to mete out punishment for injuries in fact sustained by nonparties. Ante, at 355-357. The Oregon courts did not rule otherwise. They have endeavored to follow our decisions, most recently in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559 (1996), and State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U. S. 408 (2003), and have "deprive[d] [no jury] of proper legal guidance," ante, at 355. Vacation of the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment, I am convinced, is unwarranted. The right question regarding reprehensibility, the Court acknowledges, ante, at 356, would train on "the harm that Philip Morris was prepared to inflict on the smoking public at large." Ibid. (quoting 340 Ore. 35, 51, 127 P. 3d 1165, 1175 (2006)). See also id., at 55, 127 P. 3d, at 1177 ("[T]he jury, in assessing the reprehensibility of Philip Morris's actions, could consider evidence of similar harm to other Oregonians caused (or threatened) by the same conduct." (emphasis added)). The Court identifies no evidence introduced and no charge delivered inconsistent with that inquiry. The Court's order vacating the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment is all the more inexplicable considering that Philip GINSBURG, J., dissenting Morris did not preserve any objection to the charges in fact delivered to the jury, to the evidence introduced at trial, or to opposing counsel's argument. The sole objection Philip Morris preserved was to the trial court's refusal to give defendant's requested charge number 34. See id., at 54, 127 P. 3d, at 1176. The proposed instruction read in pertinent part: "If you determine that some amount of punitive damages should be imposed on the defendant, it will then be your task to set an amount that is appropriate. This should be such amount as you believe is necessary to achieve the objectives of deterrence and punishment. While there is no set formula to be applied in reaching an appropriate amount, I will now advise you of some of the factors that you may wish to consider in this connection. "(1) The size of any punishment should bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused to Jesse Williams by the defendant's punishable misconduct. Although you may consider the extent of harm suffered by others in determining what that reasonable relationship is, you are not to punish the defendant for the impact of its alleged misconduct on other persons, who may bring lawsuits of their own in which other juries can resolve their claims and award punitive damages for those harms, as such other juries see fit. "(2) The size of the punishment may appropriately reflect the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct that is, how far the defendant has departed from accepted societal norms of conduct." App. 280a. Under that charge, just what use could the jury properly make of "the extent of harm suffered by others"? The answer slips from my grasp. A judge seeking to enlighten rather than confuse surely would resist delivering the requested charge. GINSBURG, J., dissenting The Court ventures no opinion on the propriety of the charge proposed by Philip Morris, though Philip Morris preserved no other objection to the trial proceedings. Rather than addressing the one objection Philip Morris properly preserved, the Court reaches outside the bounds of the case as postured when the trial court entered its judgment. I would accord more respectful treatment to the proceedings and dispositions of state courts that sought diligently to adhere to our changing, less than crystalline precedent. For the reasons stated, and in light of the abundant evidence of "the potential harm [Philip Morris'] conduct could have caused," ante, at 354 (emphasis deleted), I would affirm the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court. Syllabus MARRAMA v. CITIZENS BANK OF MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 05-996. Argued November 6, 2006-Decided February 21, 2007 In filing his petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, petitioner Marrama misrepresented the value of his Maine property and that he had not transferred it during the preceding year. Respondent DeGiacomo, the trustee of Marrama's estate, stated his intention to recover the Maine property as an estate asset. Thereafter, Marrama sought to convert the proceeding to Chapter 13, but the trustee and respondent bank, Marrama's principal creditor, objected, contending that the request to convert was made in bad faith and would constitute an abuse of the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Judge denied Marrama's request, finding bad faith. Affirming, the First Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rejected Marrama's argument that he had an absolute right to convert under § 706(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides that a Chapter 7 debtor "may convert a case" so long as it has not been converted previously, and that a waiver of the right to convert is unenforceable. The First Circuit also rejected that argument, emphasizing, inter alia, that a bankruptcy court has the authority to dismiss a Chapter 13 petition based on a debtor's bad faith, and that a first-time motion to convert a Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13 should not be treated differently from the filing of a Chapter 13 petition in the first instance. Held: Marrama forfeited his right to proceed under Chapter 13. The broad description of the right to convert as "absolute" in Senate and House Committee Reports fails to give full effect to the express limitation of § 706(d), which provides that "a case may not be converted to a case under another chapter of this title unless the debtor may be a debtor under such chapter." That text expressly conditioned Marrama's right to convert on his ability to qualify as a Chapter 13 "debtor." Marrama does not qualify as such a debtor under § 1307(c), which provides that a Chapter 13 proceeding may be either dismissed or converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding "for cause." Bankruptcy courts routinely treat dismissal for prepetition bad-faith conduct as implicitly authorized by the words "for cause," and a ruling that an individual's Chapter 13 case should be dismissed or converted to Chapter 7 because |