High Court to Hear Appeal of Crime Fund Fees

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear arguments in a case that originated in San Diego challenging the constitutionality of a law requiring people convicted of federal crimes to pay “assessments” to a special crime victims fund.

Judy Clarke, an attorney with Federal Defenders, challenged the law as unconstitutional in 1985, when her client pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of alien smuggling and paid a $50 assessment. The assessments, which range from $25 to $200 per offense, are authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

In the 1985 case, German Munoz Flores was placed on two years’ probation after he pleaded guilty to alien smuggling. Munoz, 35, lives in Los Angeles and has completed his probation.

Question of Origin

Clarke argued at the time that the assessments were unconstitutional because they stem from a revenue-raising measure that originated in the Senate, instead of the House of Representatives.

“The Constitution requires that all revenue-raising bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The theory behind this was that the House is more representative of the people,” Clarke said.

Clarke argued this unsuccessfully when Munoz was sentenced by a federal magistrate. She lost an appeal in U.S. District Court but won in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court struck down the assessment law as unconstitutional in December, 1988, and ruled that it was a revenue-raising law that had incorrectly originated in the Senate.

Since then, federal courts in the 9th Circuit have not been accepting the special assessment. The appellate court’s ruling is binding in Arizona, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Meanwhile, the fee is still being collected in other federal jurisdictions. The 2nd, 3rd and 6th circuit courts have turned down challenges to the law and declared it constitutional, Clarke said.

Where Money Goes

The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling. Government attorneys said the law is not a revenue-raising measure because the money collected from criminals is deposited into the Crime Victims Fund and not the U.S. Treasury.

Clarke has argued that the measure is an instrument to raise revenues because the money goes “into a special fund that provides money for crime victims.”

Although it is not known how much has been collected since the law went into effect, Justice Department lawyers said the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling invalidates assessments against thousands of persons convicted in the nine states covered by the court.

Clarke said that, in the fiscal year ending in June, 1988, there were about 40,000 criminal convictions in federal courts nationwide. She estimated that as much as $5 million may have been raised from assessments during that period.

Before the Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the law is unconstitutional, the justices will have to be convinced that they have jurisdiction in the matter, Clarke said. The court will have to be convinced that it has authority under the 1803 decision in Marbury vs. Madison to review laws that originate in Congress and decide whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional.