Document: 495 U.S. 385 110 S.Ct. 1964 109 L.Ed.2d 384 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.German MUNOZ-FLORES. No. 88-1932. Argued Feb. 20, 1990. Decided May 21, Syllabus After respondent pleaded guilty to two federal misdemeanors, a Federal Magistrate, inter alia, ordered him pay, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3013, monetary "special assessment" the Crime Victims Fund established of Act 1984. He moved correct his sentence, asserting that assessments were unconstitutional because Congress had passed 3013 in violation Origination Clause, which mandates "all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate House Representatives." The Magistrate denied motion, and District Court affirmed. However, Appeals reversed, holding that, while respondent's claim did not raise nonjusticiable political question, was bill revenue originated Senate and, thus, Clause. Held: 1. This case does present question. It has none characteristics Baker v. Carr, 369 186, 217, 82 691, 710, 7 663, identified essential finding raises such Pp. 389-397. (a) Invalidating law on Clause grounds would evince "lack . respect," within meaning Baker, House. If disrespect, Government uses term, sufficient create every judicial resolution constitutional challenge congressional enactment be impermissible. often explicitly considers whether bills violate provisions, any law's is predicated at least implicitly judgment constitutional. These factors do foreclose subsequent scrutiny constitutionality. To contrary, this duty conduct review. 389-391. (b) Government's attempts distinguish an from other challenges are rejected. First, its argument power protect institutional interests refusing pass if it believes been violated absolve responsibility consider enactments. Even greater incentive safeguard origination prerogative than refuse purposes, fact one governmental institution mechanisms available guard against incursions into institutions require Judiciary remove itself controversy labeling issue Second, suggestion intervention unwarranted involve individual rights simply irrelevant question doctrine, designed restrain inappropriate interference business branches. litigant's identity immaterial presence these concerns particular case. More fundamentally, error. repeatedly adjudicated separation powers claims brought people acting their capacities, provisions separation-of-powers Legislative Branch different kind concerning relations among branches: Both sets liberty. 392-395. (c) Also rejected another factor justifies nonjusticiable: could fashion "judicially manageable standards" determining either "for Revenue" or where "originates." suggests no reason why system capable determining, e.g., when punishment "cruel unusual" bail "[e]xcessive" will unable develop standards context. 395-396. (d) Justice STEVENS' theory—that, since Constitution silent consequences violation, but provides implication, Art. I, 7, cl. 2, both Houses signed President becomes law, some improperly may become law—is supported better reading gives effect all Clauses what procedures Executive Branches must follow enact law. Although Constitution's commands out remedy principle courts strike down command well settled. See, Marbury Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176-180, 2 L.Ed. 60. Moreover, logical consequence view most appropriately treated requirement separate govern "law." Nonetheless, saying "law" second answer unconstitutional. 396-397. 2. special assessment statute "Bil[l] passage falls squarely holdings Twin City Bank Nebecker, 167 196, 17 766, 42 134, Millard Roberts, 202 429, 26 674, 50 1090, creates, support, program, opposed support generally, Revenue." provision part of, provide money for, Fund. excess go Treasury, there evidence contemplated possibility substantial excess, nor materialize. Any general Treasury creates thus incidental provision's primary purpose. benefit persons whom funds collected relevant determination bill. Since bill, need invalidation one. 397-401. 863 F.2d 654 (CA 9 1988), reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment, O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. 401. SCALIA, 408. William C. Bryson, petitioner. Judy Clarke, San Diego, Cal., respondent. MARSHALL Court. requires impose person convicted misdemeanor, Constitution. That "[a]ll Const., We conclude initially therefore reject justiciable. On merits, we hold * In June 1985, German Munoz-Flores charged with aiding illegal entry aliens United States. subsequently misdemeanor counts abetting elude examination inspection immigration officers. sentenced probation pay $25 each count under then-applicable version (1982 ed., Supp. V). Pet. Cert. 27a-28a. 3 Respondent Id., 26a. appeal, Ninth Circuit vacated portion Court's sentencing order imposed assessments. (1988). court held 656-657. ruled Revenue," id., 657-660, Chamber first provision, 660-661. concluded 661. 4 States petitioned writ certiorari, arguing Clause.1 noted raised 5, n. ask review ruling. granted certiorari directed parties brief issue. 493 808, 48, 107 (1989).2 II A. 5 663 (1962), features characterize question: 6 "Prominent surface found textually demonstrable commitment coordinate department; lack judicially discoverable resolving it; impossibility deciding without initial policy clearly nonjudicial discretion; court's undertaking independent expressing respect due branches government; unusual unquestioning adherence decision already made; potentiality embarrassment multifarious pronouncements various departments question." Accord, INS Chadha, 462 919, 941, 103 2764, 2779, 77 317 (1983) (quoting supra, U.S., S.Ct., 710). 8 contends "[t]he persuasive suggesting nonjusticiability" concern express respect" Representatives. Brief 10.3 view, House's conclusively establishes determined Hence, argues, determination. right might sense said entail Congress' judgment. But cannot were, provisions. 135 Cong.Rec. 23121-23122 (1989) (remarks Sen. Biden) (expressing Flag Protection 1989, Stat. 777, First Amendment); 133 30498-30499 (1987) Hatch) (arguing counsel 28 591 et seq., unconstitutional). Because bound Constitution, Indeed, argue sent "H.J. Res." designation. See 409 (SCALIA, judgment). Yet consideration questions constitutionality As have rejecting identical makes here: "Our government occasion interpret manner variance construction given document branch. alleged conflict adjudication cause justify courts' avoiding responsibility." Powell McCormack, 395 486, 549, 89 1944, 1978, 23 491 (1969).4 seeks differentiate ways. argues violated. maintains should compliance significantly affect rights. Of course, neither asserted connection between identifies characteristic cases questions. Rather, use arguments establish House, identify Neither persuades us. 10 certainly can violates ability 391. Nor incentives obviate matter, unwilling presume reasons. Such presumption demonstrate profound branch pledge uphold entire just those prerogatives. 11 assume more powerful legislation assumption conclusion role play challenges. many involving claimed violations, whose allegedly appropriated prerogatives help so. Nevertheless, adjudicates claims, they Mistretta States, 488 361, 371-379, 647, 654-659, 102 714 (holding Sentencing Reform 1984, 3551 991 result Executive's wielding legislative powers, despite block Act's passage); Morrison Olson, 487 654, 685-696, 108 2597, 2616-2622, 101 569 (1988) Ethics usurpation executive functions, President's veto power); (explicitly presented question). short, 12 suggestion—that rights—reduces suing capacity direct interest our corresponding demand ensure integrity system. doctrine. doctrine Government; litigant And discern how, perspective interbranch relations, means necessarily less based obviously tied civil liberties. 13 Furthermore, ensuring emphasized " 'the diffuses secure liberty.' Morrison, 694, 2620 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Sawyer, 343 579, 635, 72 863, 870, 96 1153 (1952) (Jackson, concurring)). also 697, 2622 dissenting) ("The Framers viewed absolutely central guarantee Government"). Recognizing this, capacities. Mistretta, supra (adjudicating Commission appeal defendant who pursuant guidelines created Commission). 14 What allocation true allocations Branch. 948-951, 2782-2784 (bicameral National Legislature liberty); Federalist 63 (defending bicameral ground keep check). allocates responsibilities Senate. Compare, II, (giving "Advice Consent" over treaties appointment ambassadors, judges, officers States), (stating Representatives"). authors divided functions perceptions differing entities. 58 give accountable revenue); 64 (justifying advice consent function representatives longer terms serve complex national goals). At base, though, Framers' purpose James Madison defense Clause: "This purse may, fact, regarded complete effectual weapon constitution arm immediate people, obtaining redress grievance, carrying salutary measure." 58, 359 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Provisions branches; 15 agree. concedes, must, "general nature inquiry, involves analysis statutes materials, familiar function." 9. sure, making determinations, developing difficult context other. Surely unusual," "[e]xcessive," searches "unreasonable," action "necessary proper" executing enumerated prosaic judgments demanded 16 Carr B STEVENS agrees entertain challenges, he relies novel theory advance. notes implication passes 2; 401-403, From infers proposition "some even originated." Post, 403. agree approach. "Bills before properly President. rest section "it specify improper origination," 402. None violation. settled almost centuries. 60 (1803). applies expressly describes effects 19 accept contrary view—that originated—we survive scrutiny, comply limits. A immune Amendment.5 III 20 "revenue levy taxes strict word, purposes incidentally revenue." Nebeker, 202, 769, 134 (1897) (citing J. Story, Commentaries 880, pp. 610-611 (3d 1858)). interpreted rule mean program For example, Nebeker denominated "tax" circulating banking associations. Despite label, tax effectually accomplishing great object giving currency. There act applied meeting expenses obligations Government." 203, 769. reiterated point 1090 (1906), upheld levied property Columbia railroad projects. claim, concluding "[w]hatever provided act." 437, 675. 21 Millard. 1984 Fund, 98 2170, 10601(a) II), source programs compensate assist crime victims. 10601(d) (allocating moneys programs); 10602 (delineating eligible compensation 10603 assistance programs). scheme includes including simultaneously enacted 10601(b)(2). specified, however, total income sources exceeded $100 million year, deposited fund Treasury. 10601(c)(1).6 nothing text history indicates expected cap ever exceeded, never was. reports only occurred fiscal year stood $125 receipts $133 $134 million, dispute, 19, 16. 22 small percentage paid General attributed anticipated "substantial amounts [would] result" funds. S.Rep. 98-497, (1984). Reality accorded prediction. Dept. Justice, Office Crime, Programs, 1984: Report Attorney (§ revenues accounted four percent deposits received Attorneys' Offices 1987). Four minimal infrequent statutory considered "incidenta[l]." Millard, then, program—the "incidenta[l]" reinforced, undermined, reads: "The imposing nominal fees generate needed offset cost [Crime Fund]. result, additional helpful financing constitute new government." 13-14 (emphasis added). Respondent's reliance quoted avails nothing. Read entirety, evidences intent primarily 24 next entirely providing still fall ambit accurately payors, crimes. then contends, citing collection unless collected. misreads state payor avoid classification adopted caveat, There, "people" rather associations tax, beneficiaries currency nevertheless stating creating discrete financial revenue, reaffirmed 397-398. Thus, relevant.7 25 Section 769 "unnecessary" light bill). IV here remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 27 So ordered. O'CONNOR joins, 29 my opinion, unconstitutionally enforceable I believe necessary decide 30 appears Article enacting laws.1 three section. "All Representatives," origination. 31 immediately following speak consequences. says, things, "Every Bill Representatives Senate, shall, Law, States." An seem class comprising "Every" Houses, seems reasonable "shall President." states returns him, two-thirds thereafter approve Law." No exception categorical statement made originated. 32 later "any Bill" acted upon days like Manner it." instance, made: adjourns 10-day period expires, Again, 33 fairly inferred language not, now became governed discussed, hence virtue Presidential inaction override veto. dealing speaks necessary, sufficient, conditions: "he approves sign say although "in sufficiency procedural conditions reasonably supplied implication. accordingly meets requirements specified 34 My purposes. 'immediate people' "—Members directly elected subject ouster years—an "effectual weapon" securing constituents. Ante, 395, quoting reasons, supports binding force otherwise lawfully vitiated 35 excellent position defend power. originates assent free rely debate regardless alone drive position. Bessette Tulis, Politics, Presidency 8-16, Constitutional Order (J. eds., 1981) (discussing ways, aside enforcement, shapes behavior). expect confront coalition composed oppose substantive favor regard error too important ignore. Taxes rarely unnoticed ballot box, anticipate reelection years jealously revenue-raising measures.2 36 freedom construe wisely.3 choose invoking test turns largely economic impact measure society whole, determine identifying legislators responsible content final employed Judiciary, inquiries so searching tension enforcement democratic process—a serve. examine evidence, informal private disclosures, unavailable (or incomprehensible) Judiciary. 37 Third, able judge prejudice resulting corrective action, any, taken. comprehended analogy own recognition defect courtroom procedure vitiate outcome procedure. Chapman California, 386 18, 87 824, 705 (1967). see statehouse harmless: reflect views coincidence influenced Senate's labor. unlikely Members harmed bill's substance. Yet, imagine how assess interpretation confides instead. One expansive spurious formalities, violations ignored. 38 Fourth, complained unlike problems past recognized appropriate supervision.4 prospective alterations distribution (1983); Bowsher Synar, 478 714, 106 3181, 92 583 (1986); representative process threatens impede solution problem (1969); Reynolds Sims, 377 533, 84 1362, 506 (1964). deals subjects outside sweep power, Garcia Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 528, 105 1005, 83 1016 (1985), abrogates guarantees Rights, see, Buckley Valeo, 424 1, 612, 46 659 (1976). Nor, finally, contend taken derogation structural bulwarks groups specially protection, tame majoritarian tendencies American politics generally. supra; Powell, Carolene Products, 304 144, 152, 4, 778, 783-84, 1234 (1938); Hampton Mow Sun Wong, 426 88, 1895, 48 presents perhaps weakest imaginable justification statute: judiciary intervene body Government, though absolute effort usurp structure ensures majority needs Judiciary.5 39 considerations reinforce lead me us practical precludes up enforce Senate.6 holding, far removed consequence: distinction allocated ante, 397-398, tends convert formal accounting requirement, long consents.7 40 events, think literal whenever duly Accordingly, concur 41 Marshall Field Clark, 143 649, 495, 294 (1892), inquire enrolled actually Congress: 43 signing Speaker Representatives, open session, official attestation houses Congress. declaration houses, through presiding officers, President, attested, received, form, sanction government, obedience him. receives approval, public archives, authentication deemed unimpeachable. coequal department assurance, accept, having Congress, authenticated stated: leaving determine, arises, act, authenticated, conformity Constitution." 672, 497. 44 uncertainty instability 'required hunt journals legislature statute, certified speaker house president senate, approved governor, not.' 677, 499 Weeks Smith, 81 Me. 538, 547, 325, 327 (1889)). 45 same principle, very leads undertake investigation here. which, bore indication Res. 648." designation (a standard abbreviation "House Joint Resolution") attests operation desires "return it, Objections hardly search (if printed time cast) message. (the Revenue-Origination Clause), itself. after all, oath binds apply ready knowing whence came. origin officially authoritatively recited Houses. With investigation, representation incorrect would, said, manifest produce entertaining purportedly vetoed took because, returned indicated real similarly gainsay assertion requisite quorum, 1; vote. Mutual branches, certainty, representations regarding matters internal accepted face value. 47 disposition place forever beyond reach area resolution: sort Whenever wishes preserve point, contains arguably indicating caption "S.J. thereby last word constitutes originated—which be. Circuit's ruling inconsistent six Courts Griffin, 884 655, 656-657 (CA2 1989) Revenue"); Simpson, 885 36, (CA3 (same); Herrada, 887 524, 527 (CA5 Ashburn, 901, 903 (CA6 Tholl, 895 1178, 1181-1182 (CA7 1990) King, 891 780, 782 (CA10 (same). reserved "there promulgated Rainey 232 310, 317, 431, 617 (1914). has, resolved nonjusticiable. 436-437, 675, (1906). (1988), Third reached conclusion, 38-39. Three Circuits addressed merits mentioning refused 525, 1181-1182, 7. cf. Texas Assn. Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. 772 163 1985) Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility 1982, 324, enunciated suggest concedes demonstrably commits answering "initial determination" ought make "unusual made." danger "multifarious pronouncements" determines 710. SCALIA apparently revisit Powell. passing bars independently considering cites (1892). argument. concerned "the evidence" 670, 496-97. Appellants argued "[e]ach Journal Proceedings" implied journals. ibid. 5) (internal quotation marks omitted). left passed. 670-671, 496-497. absence stated departments" demands Where, here, implicated, apply. attempt resurrect guise rejected, 392-394, effectively 403-406. justiciable forum disputes. reasoning merely used purpose, continue it. amended 1991. 4419, 10601(c)(1)(B)(i). amendment Judicial receive $2.2 collections cover costs assessing collecting criminal fines. 10601(c)(1)(A). 1991, $150 1994. 10601(c)(1)(B)(ii). funded unrelated paying program. Here, targets crimes, group associated compensating assisting victims attributed. Whether attenuated paragraphs full: Representatives; propose Amendments Bills. States; return originated, enter large Journal, proceed reconsider Reconsideration thirds Bill, sent, together Objections, likewise reconsidered, Law. Cases Votes Yeas Nays, Names Persons voting entered respectively. ten Days (Sundays excepted) Same Adjournment prevent Return, Case observes upholding prerogatives." 392-393 original). is, mistake being powerful: specific instrumental broader conception duties interests. again supply prudential, nonconstitutional abstaining interpretation. Ibid. task interpreting "has assumed arbiter Clause," instead "looked decisions guidance Senate." 11. necessity ordinary case, clear deference wise unfortunate inducement forbear inquiry interpretive issues posed observation bears plausibility insulates Cohens Virginia, Wheat. 264, 384-385, 257 (1821). intended "safeguard liberty." 395. true, sense, aims "secure Blessings Liberty." Preamble. "promote Welfare," liberty welfare ultimately coincide. believe, sense: They individuals majority. Other effectively, Amendment secures way not. vetoing so; police processes defer matters. President; ones resolve. noteworthy, textual basis inferring origination: Upon phrase manifestly ambiguous appear aggressively, deny "deem harmless"

Category: 11