United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that interpreted the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court was asked to rule on whether a statute that imposed mandatory monetary penalties on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause.

Background

In June 1985 German Munoz-Flores was charged with and pleaded guilty to aiding the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. The two misdemeanor counts were for aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers. A provision of the federal criminal codes requires courts to impose a "special assessment" monetary penalty on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor. The money accrued from these special assessments is given to the Crime Victims Fund

Crime Victims Fund

The federal Crime Victims Fund is used to recompense victims of offenses against U.S. law. The fund was established as part of the 1984 Victims of Crimes Act. The special assessment on convicted persons is paid into this fund, as well as certain other criminal fines and penalties, and forfeited...

 which was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984

Victims of Crime Act of 1984

The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 is United States federal government legislation aimed at helping the victims of crime through means other than punishment of the criminal. It established the Crime Victim's Fund, a scheme to compensate victims of crime....

. The fund uses the money for programs to both compensate and assist victims of federal crimes. Munoz-Flores moved to correct his sentence arguing that the special assessments ($25 per offense in his case) were unconstitutional because they violated the Origination Clause of the constitution.

Analysis

The issue at the center of this case was whether the statute requiring the special assessments conflicts with the constitution. The Origination Clause states that "[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..." The Court was tasked with deciding whether the special assessments statute qualified as a "bill for raising revenue" per the Origination Clause. The Court relied on precedent to find that the special assessments should not be considered a revenue bill. As a general rule the Court stated that a statute that establishes a federal program and raises revenue to support that program does not violate the constitution. The Court differentiated this type of revenue from a statute that raises revenue to support government generally.

Stevens Concurrence

Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion in this case in which he argued that a bill can originate unconstitutionally but nevertheless still become an enforceable law if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Because of this belief Stevens argued that it was not necessary for the Court to decide whether the statute was passed in violation of the Origination Clause because it passed both houses of Congress was signed by the president. Stevens rested this argument on the fact that while the Origination Clause provides for how Congress and the president should go about enacting laws it is silent as to what the consequences should be for an improper origination.