Hudson v. United States was argued October 8, 1997 and decided a few days later on October 10, 1997. This Supreme Court Case is about whether or not the Fifth Amendment is being violated when a department, like the Office of the Comptroller of Currency, fines a person and the court also makes charges against the person.
John Hudson was chairman of the First National Bank in Tipton and in Hammon. He took advantage of his position in order to regain some bank stock he used as collateral of loans that were not paid back through a number of bank loans from other parties. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency did some investigating and discovered that the loans were made in violation of various banking statutes and regulations. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency fined Hudson for disregarding the rules and regulations. Hudson also faced criminal indictment in the federal District Court for the same offense. Hudson argued that the federal Court’s indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Fifth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit court ruled that the government did not violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, because the Office of the Comptroller of Currency fined and unbarred Hudson under civil violations and the government was charging him under criminal punishment.
The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision- written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Supreme Court supported the Tenth Circuit’s decision based on the differences between civil and criminal punishments. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to non-criminal penalties such as civil punishment.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling with Hudson v. United States in which the Fifth Amendment was not violated in this particular case. The Double Jeopardy Clause should not be applied towards penalties that are issued by agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of Currency. When an agency fines a person and the government also charges the same person from the same offence it is not in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
While the reasoning behind the conclusion that this case was not an example of double jeopardy does make sense, it also appears unfair. However, I suppose just because it seems unfair does not necessarily make it unfair. I am sure we have all seen warning signs that go something like “Trespassers will be fined $500 and/or up to six months in prison.” It appears to be two different punishments, but they are incurred for the same crime.
ReplyDeleteI feel like in the particular case you wrote about, the offender having two different cases for having committed the same crime seems inherently unfair, though it is not. Perhaps the agency and the government should have filed the case jointly. I suppose that is impossible, though, considering the different natures of the punishments and offenses. Not everything in life is fair, I guess.