Noel Tenenbaum is appealing to the Supreme Court after Big Content scored $675,000 in damages from him during a long running file sharing case.
Judge Nancy Gertner thought that the damages were unconstitutionally excessive and reduced the award to $67,500.
But the appeals court in the case reinstated the original $675,000 on procedural grounds.
Judge Gertner apparently should not have used the constitutional question, but have used some legal device called a remittitur which would allow the RIAA to have the case happen with a new jury. There have been three trials in the similar Jammie Thomas case.
Tenenbaum challenged the appeals court on all of this, but was rejected. But now Tenenbaum has filed to raise the issue with the Supreme Court.
His legal team is arguing that the statutory damages for non-commercial use is clearly a major Constitutional issue.
Techdirt points out that by the UD courts forcing it through the remittitur process they are pressuring people like Tenenbaum to settle, rather than ever allowing it to be judged on constitutionality.
This helps copyright trolls to shake people down, without ever allowing them to challenge the constitutionality of massive statutory damages.