United States v. Munoz-Flores
495 U.S. 385 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that imposes a monetary assessment to fund a specific governmental program, rather than to raise revenue for the government generally, is not a "Bill for raising Revenue" within the meaning of the Constitution's Origination Clause.
Facts:
- German Munoz-Flores aided the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.
- He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of aiding and abetting aliens to elude inspection by immigration officers.
- A Magistrate sentenced Munoz-Flores to probation.
- Pursuant to the statute 18 U.S.C. § 3013, the court also ordered him to pay a special assessment of $25 on each of the two counts.
Procedural Posture:
- A U.S. Magistrate sentenced German Munoz-Flores and ordered him to pay the special assessments.
- Munoz-Flores filed a motion in the trial court to correct the sentence, arguing the assessments were unconstitutional.
- The Magistrate denied the motion, and the U.S. District Court affirmed that decision.
- Munoz-Flores (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the assessments, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3013 violated the Origination Clause.
- The United States (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
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 18 U.S.C. § 3013, which requires courts to impose a monetary 'special assessment' on persons convicted of federal crimes to fund the Crime Victims Fund, violate the Constitution's Origination Clause, which mandates that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
No, the special assessment statute does not violate the Origination Clause. A bill is not one 'for raising Revenue' if its primary purpose is to fund a specific governmental program, as opposed to raising revenue to support the government in general. The special assessment provision was passed as part of the Victims of Crime Act to provide money for the Crime Victims Fund. Any revenue that might flow to the general Treasury from this fund is merely incidental to the statute's primary purpose. This aligns with precedents like Twin City Bank v. Nebeker and Millard v. Roberts, which held that statutes creating programs and raising revenue to support them are not revenue bills. The Court also held that a challenge under the Origination Clause is a justiciable issue, not a political question, as courts are capable of developing standards for resolving such claims and have a duty to review the constitutionality of congressional enactments.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
I concur in the judgment. An improperly originated bill can still become an enforceable law if it passes both Houses of Congress and is signed by the President. The text of Article I, § 7 implies that the procedural requirements for a bill to become law are met once it passes both chambers and is signed, making no exception for origination errors. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, which has an absolute veto and is in the best position to defend its own institutional prerogative, to enforce the Origination Clause, not the judiciary's.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
I concur in the judgment. The 'enrolled bill rule,' as established in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, precludes judicial inquiry into the internal procedures of Congress. The bill at issue was designated 'H. J. Res. 648,' which is an official attestation by Congress that it originated in the House. For reasons of mutual respect between the branches and the need for legal certainty, courts must accept such official attestations at face value and should not investigate whether the representation is factually correct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Origination Clause, establishing that its application is limited to bills whose primary purpose is general taxation, not fees or assessments tied to specific programs. This 'primary purpose' test provides Congress with greater flexibility in funding new initiatives without triggering Origination Clause constraints. The Court also firmly rejected the argument that such procedural constitutional challenges are nonjusticiable political questions, reinforcing the judiciary's role in policing separation-of-powers boundaries, even those within the legislative branch itself.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Munoz-Flores