The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, October 8, 1997
Decision: Wednesday, December 10, 1997
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Double Jeopardy

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (on behalf of the Respondent)
Bernard J. Rothbaum (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

John Hudson was chairman of the First National Bank of Tipton and the First National Bank of Hammon. Hudson used his position to regain bank stock he had used as collateral on defaulted loans through a series of bank loans to other parties. Upon investigation the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) found that the loans were made in violation of several banking statues and regulations. The OCC fined and debarred Hudson for the violations. Later, he faced criminal indictment in federal District Court for violations tied to those same events. Hudson objected, arguing that the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit eventually found for the Government in light of United States v. Halper on the grounds that the original proceedings were civil in nature and not so disproportional to the proven damages to the Government as to qualify as a form of criminal punishment.

Question

Are punitive fines and debarment by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency a sufficiently "criminal" form of punishment that a subsequent criminal indictment for the same violations would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth Circuit's decision based on the distinction made in United States v. Ward between criminal and civil punishments. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to non-criminal penalties, even if the purpose of the penalty is to punish the offenders and deter future offenders. Since the first punishment handed down by the OCC - a Federal Banking Agency, not a court - was not a criminal punishment, the subsequent indictments were upheld.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Double Jeopardy
Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a special concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority, joined Breyer's concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence
Breyer
Full Opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_976/>
(last visited ).