Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 947

524IND

Unit: $UBV [08-21-00 18:45:40] PGT: INDBV (Bound Volume)

INDEX

1307

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
I. Double Jeopardy.

Noncapital sentencing proceedings—Retrial on prior conviction alle-
gation.—Double Jeopardy Clause, which precludes retrial on a prior con-
viction allegation in capital sentencing proceedings, does not apply in non-
capital sentencing proceedings. Monge v. California, p. 721.

II. Due Process.

1. Coal Industry Retiree Health Beneﬁt Act of 1992—Health care bene-
ﬁts funding.—Court of Appeals’ decision, that Act’s allocation of liability
for funding health care beneﬁts for coal industry retirees and their de-
pendents does not violate Due Process Clause as applied to a company
is reversed. Eastern Enterprises v.
that left coal
Apfel, p. 498.

industry in 1965,

2. Jury instructions—Lesser included offense.—Beck v. Alabama, 447
U. S. 625—which invalidated a state law prohibiting lesser included of-
fense instructions in capital cases, when such offenses to charged crime
existed under state law—does not require state courts to instruct juries
on offenses that are not lesser included offenses of charged crime under
state law. Hopkins v. Reeves, p. 88.

III. Excessive Fines.

Failure to report currency transport—Full forfeiture of funds.—Where
respondent’s sole offense was his failure to report to Government, as re-
quired by federal law, that he was leaving United States with more than
$10,000 in currency, forfeiture of entire $357,144 he failed to declare would
violate Excessive Fines Clause because it would be grossly disproportional
to gravity of his offense. United States v. Bajakajian, p. 321.

IV. Extradition Clause.

Habeas relief—State court’s authority.—New Mexico Supreme Court
exceeded its authority under Extradition Clause and Extradition Act when
it afﬁrmed a habeas grant releasing respondent from custody even though
New Mexico Governor had previously ordered him extradited to Ohio.
New Mexico ex rel. Ortiz v. Reed, p. 151.

V. Freedom of Expression.

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965—
Selection criteria for National Endowment for the Arts grants.—Title 20
U. S. C. § 954(d)(1)—which requires NEA to consider “general standards
of decency and respect for . . . diverse beliefs and values” in awarding
grants—is facially valid, as it neither inherently interferes with First
Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness principles. Na-
tional Endowment for Arts v. Finley, p. 569.