U.S. v. Halper
490 U.S. 435 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A civil penalty imposed in a separate proceeding after a criminal punishment for the same conduct violates the Double Jeopardy Clause if the penalty is not rationally related to the goal of compensating the government for its losses, but rather serves retributive or deterrent purposes.
Facts:
- Irwin Halper, as manager of New City Medical Laboratories, Inc., provided medical services to patients eligible for Medicare benefits.
- Over a two-year period, Halper submitted 65 separate false claims for reimbursement to Blue Cross, a Medicare fiscal intermediary.
- For each of the 65 claims, Halper sought reimbursement at a rate of $12 when the service rendered entitled the company to only $3.
- As a result of these misrepresentations, the Federal Government, through Blue Cross, was overcharged a total of $585.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Irwin Halper on 65 counts of violating the criminal false-claims statute.
- Following a criminal trial, Halper was convicted on all 65 counts, plus 16 counts of mail fraud, and was sentenced to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
- The government then brought a separate civil action against Halper in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the civil False Claims Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the government on the issue of civil liability, based on the facts established in the criminal conviction.
- The District Court found that the statutory civil penalty of over $130,000 would be a second punishment violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, as it was not rationally related to the government's $585 loss.
- After reconsideration, the District Court amended its judgment, limiting the government's recovery to double damages ($1,170) plus the costs of the civil action.
- The United States, as appellant, took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 statutory civil penalty, imposed in a proceeding separate from and subsequent to a criminal prosecution, constitute a second 'punishment' in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause if it is overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages the defendant has caused?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, a civil penalty constitutes a second punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause if it is overwhelmingly disproportionate to the government's loss. The court held that while the labels 'civil' and 'criminal' are relevant, they are not controlling. A civil sanction that cannot be fairly characterized as solely remedial, and can only be explained as serving retributive or deterrent purposes, is considered punishment. The court rejected the government's argument that double jeopardy protection only applies to successive criminal penalties, reasoning that the protection is personal and must be assessed by the character of the sanctions actually imposed. In Halper's case, a statutory penalty of over $130,000 for causing a $585 loss was so disproportionate that it bore no rational relation to the goal of making the government whole and therefore qualified as a second punishment.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes, the civil penalty in this case constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes. The rule established by the Court is an objective one, grounded in the nature of the sanction and the specific facts of the case. It does not authorize courts to engage in a subjective inquiry into the purposes behind a proceeding. The controlling factor is whether the civil penalty bears a rational relation to the government's damages. Because the penalty here does not, it must be considered punishment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered Double Jeopardy jurisprudence by establishing that a nominally 'civil' penalty can constitute 'punishment.' The court moved away from a formalistic approach based on statutory labels toward a functional, case-by-case analysis of the penalty's actual purpose and effect. This creates a new, albeit narrow, protection for individuals against grossly disproportionate civil sanctions imposed by the government after a criminal conviction for the same conduct. The ruling requires trial courts to conduct an accounting of the government's actual damages and costs in cases where a fixed-penalty statute appears to be punitive as applied.
Unlock the full brief for U.S. v. Halper