Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch et al.
511 U.S. 767 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tax constitutes punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes if it has punitive characteristics, such as being conditioned on the commission of a crime, being levied only after an arrest, and being imposed on property the taxpayer no longer possesses. Such a tax, when imposed in a separate proceeding after a criminal penalty for the same conduct, violates the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Facts:
- The Kurth family operated a mixed grain and livestock farm in central Montana.
- In 1986, the Kurths began cultivating and selling marijuana on their farm.
- On October 1, 1987, Montana's Dangerous Drug Tax Act, which imposes a tax on the possession of illegal drugs, went into effect.
- Approximately two weeks after the Act became effective, Montana law enforcement officers raided the Kurth farm.
- During the raid, officers arrested the six members of the Kurth family involved in the operation.
- The officers confiscated all marijuana plants, harvested marijuana, and related materials and paraphernalia, effectively ending the operation.
- Following an inventory, law enforcement agents destroyed the confiscated drugs.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana filed criminal charges against the six Kurth family members in Montana District Court, a state trial court.
- Following plea agreements, the state court sentenced the Kurths, with some receiving prison time and others receiving suspended or deferred sentences.
- The Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) assessed a tax of nearly $900,000 on the confiscated drugs pursuant to the state's Dangerous Drug Tax Act.
- The Kurths filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana, and in those proceedings, they objected to the tax as an unconstitutional second punishment.
- The Bankruptcy Court held that the tax assessment was a form of double jeopardy and was therefore invalid under the Federal Constitution.
- The DOR appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision.
- The DOR, as appellant, then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the Kurths as appellees.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the tax unconstitutional as applied to the Kurths because the state failed to show it was rationally related to its actual costs.
- The Department of Revenue of Montana petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state tax imposed on the possession and storage of illegal drugs, which is levied in a separate proceeding after the state has already imposed a criminal penalty on a person for that same conduct, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition against successive punishments for the same offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. A tax imposed on illegal drugs after a criminal penalty has already been levied for the same conduct constitutes a second punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. While the government may ordinarily tax illegal activities, this particular tax has several unusual features that mark it as punitive rather than a true revenue-raising measure. First, the tax is conditioned on the commission of a crime and is exacted only after the taxpayer has been arrested for the precise conduct that gives rise to the tax. Second, it is a property tax levied on goods—the confiscated drugs—that the taxpayer neither owned nor possessed when the tax was imposed, as the state had already destroyed them. A tax on possession of goods that no longer exist has an 'unmistakable punitive character.' Finally, while not dispositive alone, the tax rate was remarkably high, and its purpose was clearly deterrent. Taken together, these features depart so far from a normal revenue law as to become a form of punishment barred by the Constitution when imposed in a successive proceeding.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Montana drug tax is a genuine tax and does not constitute a second punishment for double jeopardy purposes. The Court's opinion drastically alters existing law by subjecting a tax statute to double jeopardy analysis for the first time based on a 'hodgepodge of criteria.' The government has long been permitted to tax illegal activities and to enact taxes with a deterrent purpose. The fact that the tax is collected after an arrest is a practical necessity of taxing a clandestine enterprise, not proof of its punitive nature. Furthermore, the tax rate, while high, is not so exorbitant as to be considered purely punitive, especially when compared to other 'sin taxes' on legal products like alcohol and cigarettes. The tax has a legitimate, nonpenal purpose of raising revenue from a profitable underground economy and should be upheld.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No, this tax is not necessarily unconstitutional and the case should be remanded for proper analysis. While a drug tax is subject to double jeopardy scrutiny, it should be analyzed under the framework of United States v. Halper. A civil sanction is punishment only if it is overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages the government incurred and serves no remedial purpose. The lower courts erred by requiring the State to provide an accounting of its costs without first requiring the Kurths to show that the tax bore no rational relation to the State's nonpunitive interest in defraying the immense costs of drug control. By declaring the tax punitive on its face, the majority's decision is an unwarranted expansion of double jeopardy jurisprudence that will undermine the government's ability to seek recompense for the societal costs of crime.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The tax does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the Clause's text and history show that it prohibits only successive prosecutions, not successive punishments. The 'multiple punishments' doctrine is a judicial invention that misreads the Constitution. As long as the legislature authorizes multiple punishments—such as a criminal penalty and a civil tax—for the same conduct, there is no constitutional violation. The Due Process Clause requires that punishments be authorized by law, and the Excessive Fines Clause protects against substantively excessive penalties, but the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated by a legislatively authorized civil sanction following a criminal one. The Court's decision to invalidate the tax is based on the erroneous holding in United States v. Halper, which should be abandoned.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that a legislative label of 'tax' is not immune from Double Jeopardy scrutiny. It provides a framework for determining when a tax functions as a 'punishment' by looking at its substance and features, such as being conditioned on a crime and levied on confiscated property. The decision carves out a specific limitation on the state's general power to tax illegal activities, preventing states from imposing a punitive 'tax' in a separate proceeding after a criminal conviction. The Court notably distinguished this analysis from the remedial cost-accounting test in United States v. Halper, suggesting that taxes and civil penalties require different constitutional assessments in the double jeopardy context.
Unlock the full brief for Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch et al.