United States v. Munoz-Flores | |
---|---|
Argued February 20, 1990 Decided May 21, 1990 | |
Full case name | United States v. German Munoz-Flores |
Citations | 495 U.S. 385 (more) 110 S.Ct. 1964; 109 L. Ed. 2d 384 |
Holding | |
The "special assessments" statute, 18. U.S.C. §3013 (2006), which requires a monetary penalty be imposed on those convicted of federal misdemeanor crimes, is not a "revenue bill" and so does not violate the Origination Clause of the Constitution. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Marshall, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Blackmun, Kennedy |
Concurrence | Stevens, joined by O'Connor |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. Art. I § 7; 18 U.S.C. §3013 |
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 that clause, as the lower court had held.