Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsJusticiabilityPolitical Question DoctrineOrigination ClauseOrigination Clausepolitical questionjusticiabilityBills for raising Revenue
Facts
German Munoz-Flores pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers. The magistrate imposed probation and a $25 special assessment on each count under 18 U.S.C. § 3013. Munoz-Flores argued that the assessments were unconstitutional because § 3013 had been enacted in violation of the Origination Clause. Section 3013 was enacted as part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, which created the Crime Victims Fund, and the assessments were one of several funding mechanisms for that program.
Issue
Whether a challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 3013 under the Origination Clause presents a nonjusticiable political question. If the claim is justiciable, whether § 3013 is a Bill for raising Revenue within Article I, § 7, cl. 1, such that it had to originate in the House of Representatives.
Rule
An Origination Clause challenge is justiciable unless it has the characteristics identified in Baker v. Carr for a political question. A statute is not a Bill for raising Revenue when it creates a specific governmental program and raises money to support that program rather than to support government generally; any incidental revenue that may flow to the general Treasury does not convert it into a revenue bill.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts a federal statute requiring persons convicted of certain cyberstalking offenses to pay a $75 assessment. The proceeds are placed in a newly created Digital Abuse Recovery Fund that finances counseling grants and forensic assistance for victims in Phoenix and elsewhere, with any year-end overflow above a statutory cap transferred to the Treasury. After being sentenced in federal court in Arizona, Lena Ortiz argues the statute violates the Origination Clause, and the government says the claim is a nonjusticiable political question because the House passed the bill and thus already determined the Clause was satisfied.
How should the federal court rule on the government's justiciability argument?
Explanation. The challenge is justiciable. The majority held that an Origination Clause challenge does not become a political question merely because the House passed the bill and may have implicitly judged it constitutional. Courts have a duty to review the constitutionality of congressional enactments, and ordinary judicial review does not show the kind of forbidden disrespect identified in Baker v. Carr.