Hudson v. United States
522 U.S. 93 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment only prohibits the imposition of multiple successive criminal punishments for the same offense; a nominally civil sanction will not be considered 'criminal' unless there is the 'clearest proof' that the statutory scheme is so punitive in purpose or effect as to override legislative intent.
Facts:
- John Hudson, Jack Rackley, and Larry Baresel were officers and directors of the First National Bank of Tipton and the First National Bank of Hammon.
- The men used their positions at the banks to arrange a series of loans to third parties.
- These loans were nominee loans, secretly intended for the benefit of Hudson, which allowed him to redeem his own bank stock that he had pledged as collateral on other defaulted loans.
- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) determined that these illegal loans caused the banks to suffer losses of nearly $900,000 and contributed to the banks' failure.
Procedural Posture:
- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), an administrative agency, initiated proceedings against petitioners Hudson, Rackley, and Baresel for violating federal banking statutes.
- The petitioners resolved the administrative proceedings by entering into Consent Orders, agreeing to pay monetary assessments and to be debarred from the banking industry.
- Subsequently, a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma indicted the petitioners on criminal charges based on the same lending transactions.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, which the District Court initially denied.
- On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part but remanded the case.
- On remand, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the indictments.
- The Government appealed that dismissal, and the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the sanctions were not 'punishment' for double jeopardy purposes.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Tenth Circuit's decision.
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 the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar a criminal prosecution for conduct that was previously the subject of administrative sanctions, including monetary penalties and occupational debarment, imposed by a government agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the prior administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal. The Clause protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. To determine whether a penalty is criminal, courts must first assess legislative intent. If Congress intended the sanction to be civil, a court will only override that label upon the 'clearest proof' that the penalty is so punitive in effect as to be criminal. This analysis disavows the method used in United States v. Halper, which wrongly focused on whether a sanction was 'solely' remedial and assessed the sanction as applied rather than the statute on its face. Here, Congress intended the OCC sanctions to be civil, and under the Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez factors, the debarment and monetary penalties are not so punitive as to be transformed into criminal punishment, as they do not involve an affirmative restraint like imprisonment and serve the non-punitive goal of protecting the integrity of the banking industry.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Agrees with the judgment and with overruling Halper. Justice Scalia writes separately to reiterate his view that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits only successive prosecutions, not successive punishments. However, because the majority's return to the pre-Halper rule requires a successive 'criminal' proceeding, its jurisprudence now essentially duplicates the correct double jeopardy analysis and will be harmless.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No. Concurs in the judgment only. The Court did not need to re-examine and overrule Halper because this is an easy case that should have been decided on the simpler grounds of the Blockburger 'same-elements' test. The administrative violations for exceeding lending limits and the criminal charges for conspiracy and making false entries each contain an element the other does not. Therefore, they are not the 'same offense,' and the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated, making the entire discussion of whether the sanctions were 'punishment' unnecessary.
Concurring - Justice Souter
No. Concurs in the judgment. Agrees that the Kennedy-Ward analytical framework is the correct approach and that Halper should be abandoned. Justice Souter would, like Justice Stevens, begin and end the analysis with the Blockburger same-elements test, which resolves the case. He writes to add a caveat that the 'clearest proof' standard is context-dependent and that courts should be wary of assuming that a sanction's punitive nature will rarely be proven, especially given the modern expansion of civil forfeiture and penalties.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. Concurs in the judgment. Agrees with adopting the Kennedy-Ward approach but disagrees with two aspects of the majority's reasoning. First, the 'clearest proof' language is misleading and should be discarded in favor of a direct application of the Kennedy factors. Second, the Court should not have abandoned Halper's practice of 'assessing the character of the actual sanctions imposed' in a specific case, as an otherwise civil statute could be applied in a punitively criminal manner in special circumstances.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant retrenchment in double jeopardy jurisprudence by formally disavowing the analysis from United States v. Halper. By returning to the more deferential Ward test and reinstating the high 'clearest proof' standard, the Court made it substantially more difficult for defendants to characterize civil or administrative sanctions as 'punishment.' This decision gives the government much broader authority to impose significant civil penalties in regulated industries and then pursue separate criminal charges for the same underlying misconduct. It effectively limits the Double Jeopardy Clause's application in the context of parallel civil and criminal proceedings, strengthening the government's hand in regulatory enforcement actions.
