[{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/united-states-v-munoz-flores-wikipedia\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/united-states-v-munoz-flores-wikipedia\/","headline":"United States v. Munoz-Flores – Wikipedia","name":"United States v. Munoz-Flores – Wikipedia","description":"before-content-x4 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia after-content-x4 1990 United States Supreme Court case United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385","datePublished":"2017-06-25","dateModified":"2017-06-25","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/#Person","name":"lordneo","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/author\/lordneo\/","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c9645c498c9701c88b89b8537773dd7c?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/wiki4\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/download.jpg","width":600,"height":60}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","url":"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Special:CentralAutoLogin\/start?type=1x1","height":"1","width":"1"},"url":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/united-states-v-munoz-flores-wikipedia\/","wordCount":3234,"articleBody":"     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});before-content-x4From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x41990 United States Supreme Court caseUnited 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.       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Table of ContentsBackground[edit]Supreme Court decision[edit]Justice Stevens’s concurrence[edit]References[edit]Background[edit]In June 1985, German Munoz-Flores was charged with and pleaded guilty to aiding the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Both misdemeanor counts were for aiding and abetting aliens to elude examination and inspection by immigration officers.[1] A provision of the federal criminal codes requires courts to impose a “special assessment” monetary penalty on any person convicted of a federal misdemeanor.[2]The money accrued from the special assessments is given to the Crime Victims Fund, which was established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.[3] The fund uses the money for programs to both compensate and assist victims of federal crimes.       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4Munoz-Flores moved to correct his sentence by arguing that the special assessments ($25 per offense in his case) were unconstitutional because they violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of Munoz-Flores.[4]Supreme Court decision[edit]The issue at the center of the case was whether the statute requiring the special assessments conflicts with the Constitution. The Origination Clause states, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….”[5] The Court was tasked with deciding whether the special assessments statute qualified as a “bill for raising revenue,” per the Origination Clause.In an opinion by Justice Marshall, the Court relied on precedent to find that the special assessments should not be considered a revenue bill.[6] The Court stated that as a general rule, a statute that establishes a federal program and raises revenue to support that program does not violate the Constitution. The Court differentiated that type of revenue from a statute raising revenue to support government generally. Justice Marshall wrote, “Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, the ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments.”[7] He continued, “A law passed in violation of the Origination Clause would thus be no more immune from judicial scrutiny because it was passed by both houses and signed by the President than would a law passed in violation of the First Amendment.”[8] Thus, the Court made it clear that despite the finding that the special assessment was not a revenue bill, even if it had been a revenue bill and then had subsequently been passed by both houses, it would still be subject to judicial review of its legality.Justice Stevens’s concurrence[edit]Justice Stevens filed a concurring opinion in the case in which he argued that a bill can originate unconstitutionally but still become an enforceable law if it is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Justice Stevens argued that it was unnecessary for the Court to decide whether the statute was passed in violation of the Origination Clause because it passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the President. He rested the 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.References[edit]^ 495 U.S. at 388.^ 18 U.S.C. \u00a73013(a)(1).^ Crime Victims Fund, 42 U.S.C. \u00a710601.^ United States v. Munoz-Flores, 863 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1988).^ U.S. Const., Art. I, \u00a77, cl. 1.^ See Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196, 202 (1897).^ 495 U.S. at 392.^ 495 U.S. at 397.U.S. Supreme Court Article I case lawDormant Commerce ClauseBrown v. Maryland (1827)Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co. (1829)Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852)Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)Swift & Co. v. United States (1905)George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy (1925)Edwards v. California (1941)Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona (1945)Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison (1951)Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland (1954)Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1959)National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967)Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977)Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977)City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland (1978)Reeves, Inc. v. Stake (1980)Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. (1981)Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (1982)White v. Mass. Council of Construction Employers (1983)South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)Maine v. Taylor (1986)Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc. (1989)Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992)Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (1992)Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon (1994)C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown (1994)West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994)Granholm v. Heald (2005)United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis (2008)Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne (2015)South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023)OthersCopyright Act of 1790Patent Act of 1793Patent infringement case lawPatentability case lawCopyright Act of 1831Copyright Act of 1870Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890International Copyright Act of 1891Copyright Act of 1909Patent misuse case lawClayton Antitrust Act of 1914Lanham ActInwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. (1982)San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987)Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. (1995)College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2001)TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. (2001)Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003)Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (2003)Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (2014)POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. (2014)Matal v. Tam (2017)Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. (2020)Copyright Act of 1976Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977)Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984)Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder (1985)Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989)Stewart v. Abend (1990)Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (1994)Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc. (1996)Quality King Distributors Inc., v. L’anza Research International Inc. (1998)Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. (1998)New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001)Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003)MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (2005)Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick (2010)Golan v. Holder (2012)Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2013)Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014)American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. (2014)Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (2017)Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (2019)Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (2019)Allen v. Cooper (2020)Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (2020)Other copyright casesOther patent casesContinental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. (1908)Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde (1916)United States v. General Electric Co. (1926)United States v. Univis Lens Co. (1942)Altvater v. Freeman (1943)Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. (1948)Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. (1950)Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. (1964)Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther (1964)Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964)Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (1965)Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966)United States v. Adams (1966)Brenner v. Manson (1966)Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (1969)Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1971)Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (1973)Dann v. Johnston (1976)Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc. (1976)Parker v. Flook (1978)Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)Diamond v. Diehr (1981)Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989)Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. (1990)Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997)Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (2001)Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. (2005)eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (2006)Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. (2006)LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. (2006)MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (2007)KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007)Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2008)Bilski v. Kappos (2010)Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011)Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (2011)Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership (2011)Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012)Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)Gunn v. Minton (2013)Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)FTC v. Actavis, Inc. (2013)Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (2014)Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (2015)Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015)Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2016)TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (2019)Other trademark cases       (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});after-content-x4"},{"@context":"http:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"Enzyklop\u00e4die"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https:\/\/wiki.edu.vn\/en\/wiki24\/united-states-v-munoz-flores-wikipedia\/#breadcrumbitem","name":"United States v. Munoz-Flores – Wikipedia"}}]}]