SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

UNITED STATES – Appellant
Versus
MUNOZ-FLORES, (1990) – Respondent


United States Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MUNOZ-FLORES, (1990)
No. 88-1932
Argued: February 20, 1990 Decided: May 21, 1990

After respondent pleaded guilty to two federal misdemeanors, a Federal Magistrate, inter alia, ordered him to pay, as required by 18 U.S.C. 3013, a monetary "special assessment" to the Crime Victims Fund established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984. He moved to correct his sentence, asserting that the assessments were unconstitutional because Congress had passed 3013 in violation of the Origination Clause, which mandates that "all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." The Magistrate denied the motion, and the District Court affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, while respondents claim did not raise a nonjusticiable political question, 3013 was a bill for raising revenue that had originated in the Senate and, thus, was passed in violation of the Clause.

Held:

    1. This case does not present a nonjusticiable political question. It has none of the characteristics that Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, identified as essential to a finding that a case raises such a question. Pp. 38










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top