A float plane waits to taxi from an oil-covered beach in Prince William Sound, an inlet off the Gulf of Alaska in this April 1, 1989, file photo. A massive oil spill from the tanker Exxon Valdez covered more than 100 miles southwest of Valdez. The Supreme Court will decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay punitive damages in connection with the Alaskan oil spill.

Washington ? The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages to victims of the huge Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline in 1989.

The high court stepped into the long-running battle over the damages that Exxon Mobil owes from the supertanker accident in Prince William Sound that was the worst oil spill in U.S. history. The Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef, cracking its hull and spilling 11 million gallons of oil.

Hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals died as a result.

It is a case filled with superlatives. The award, even after it was cut in half by a federal appeals court in December, would be the largest punitive damages judgment ever. A jury in Alaska awarded $5 billion in damages in 1994 and the company has been appealing the verdict ever since.

Exxon Mobil, based in Irving, Texas, is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company and last year posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company – $39.5 billion. That result topped the previous record, also by Exxon Mobil, of $36.13 billion set in 2005.

Arguing against Supreme Court review, lawyers for the plaintiffs, some of whom have died, said the damages award is “barely more than three weeks of Exxon’s net profits.”

The plaintiffs still living include about 33,000 commercial fishermen, cannery workers, landowners, Native Alaskans, local governments and businesses. They urged the court to reject the company’s appeal, saying, “After more than 18 years, it is time for this protracted litigation to end.”

Mike Webber of Cordova, Alaska, a Native Alaskan artist and commercial fisherman, said any money would be insufficient. “I … would have been able to make twice what I make now if the fisheries had stayed healthy,” Webber said Monday after learning of the court’s action.

But the justices said they would consider whether the company should have to pay damages at all under the Clean Water Act and centuries-old laws governing shipping. The court has frequently sided with business interests in punitive damages and other cases of corporate liability.

John Paul Jones, a University of Richmond law professor and expert in maritime law, said the court was right to jump into the case because lower courts long have been divided on some of the issues peculiar to the laws concerning accidents on the water.

“The decision in this case could dictate the outcome of a significant number of cases,” Jones said.

Exxon said that even if the court finds some money is due, it should rule that the $2.5 billion award violates the Constitution because it is too large. The justices said they would not consider that argument when they hear the case early next year.