The Supreme Court this morning declined (PDF) to hear the appeal of admitted file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum, who recently asked the court to consider the proper process for slashing his $675,000 damage award.

The trial judge in Tenenbaum's case initially ruled that the jury verdict was unconstitutionally punitive, but the appellate court overturned this ruling and said that the judge first had to use the common-law process of "remittitur" to cut down the verdict before reaching the broader constitutional question. (Judges must typically try to address cases by dealing with lower-order issues, only reaching high-level claims about things like constitutionality when unavoidable.)

Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, told the Supreme Court that the labels want to maintain their high damage award "for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the Internet, and so frightening for parents and teachers of students using the Internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future." The judges didn't buy it.

The Supreme Court's Tenenbaum denial means that the case will return to the trial level, where the judge may use remittitur to cut the award to the $2,250 per song maximum she will allow. But a remittitur ruling will allow the record labels a choice: accept the reduced amount or drag Tenenbaum through a second federal trial.

Tenenbaum is the second file-swapper to take his case all the way to trial and verdict. When faced with a nearly identical remittitur situation against the first such file-swapper, Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Minnesota, the labels chose a new trial. Tenenbaum may be in for the same fate unless he settles.