''United States v. Munoz-Flores'', 495 U.S. 385 (1990), was a
United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that involve a point o ...
case that interpreted the
Origination Clause
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause,Wirls, Daniel and Wirls, Stephen. The Invention of the United States Senate', p. 188 (Taylor & Francis 2004). is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause says ...
of the
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the Supremacy Clause, supreme law of the United States, United States of America. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, in 1789. Originally comprising seven ar ...
. The Court was asked to rule on whether a statute that imposed mandatory monetary penalties on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was enacted in violation of that clause, as the lower court had held.
Background
In June 1985, German Munoz-Flores was charged with and pleaded guilty to aiding the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Both misdemeanor counts were for aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers. A provision of the federal criminal codes requires courts to impose a "special assessment" monetary penalty on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor.
The money accrued from the special assessments is given to the
Crime Victims Fund
The United States Crime Victims Fund, administered by the Office for Victims of Crime, is used to recompense victims of offenses against U.S. law. The fund was established as part of the 1984 Victims of Crimes Act. The special assessment on conv ...
, which was established by the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) is United States federal government legislation aimed at helping the victims of crime through means other than punishment of the criminal. It established the Crime Victim's Fund, a scheme to compensate victims ...
. The fund uses the money for programs to both compensate and assist victims of federal crimes.
Munoz-Flores moved to correct his sentence by arguing that the special assessments ($25 per offense in his case) were unconstitutional because they violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is the U.S. federal court of appeals that has appellate jurisdiction over the U.S. district courts in the following federal judicial districts:
* District o ...
held in favor of Munoz-Flores.
Supreme Court decision
The issue at the center of the case was whether the statute requiring the special assessments conflicts with the Constitution. The Origination Clause states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...." The Court was tasked with deciding whether the special assessments statute qualified as a "bill for raising revenue," per the Origination Clause.
In an opinion by
Justice Marshall, the Court relied on precedent to find that the special assessments should not be considered a revenue bill. The Court stated that as a general rule, a statute that establishes a federal program and raises revenue to support that program does not violate the Constitution. The Court differentiated that type of revenue from a statute raising revenue to support government generally. Justice Marshall wrote, "Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, the ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments." He continued, "A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both houses and signed by the President than would a law passed in violation of the First Amendment."
[495 U.S. at 397.] Thus, the Court made it clear that despite the finding that the special assessment was not a revenue bill, even if it had been a revenue bill and then had subsequently been passed by both houses, it would still be subject to judicial review of its legality.
Justice Stevens's concurrence
Justice Stevens
John Paul Stevens (April 20, 1920 – July 16, 2019) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 to 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the second-olde ...
filed a concurring opinion in the case in which he argued that a bill can originate unconstitutionally but still become an enforceable law if it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Justice Stevens argued that it was unnecessary for the Court to decide whether the statute was passed in violation of the Origination Clause because it passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President. He rested the argument on the fact that while the Origination Clause provides for how Congress and the President should go about enacting laws, it is silent as to what the consequences should be for an improper origination.
References
{{USArticleI
United States Constitution Article One case law
United States Supreme Court cases
1990 in United States case law
United States political question doctrine case law
Origination Clause case law
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
Compensation for victims of crime