# United States v. Halper > Supreme Court of the United States · May 15, 1989 · 490 U.S. 435 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431671 ## Case - **Full name:** United States v. Halper - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** May 15, 1989 - **Citations:** 490 U.S. 435; 57 U.S.L.W. 4526; 109 S. Ct. 1892; 104 L. Ed. 2d 487; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2262 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kennedy - **Judges:** Blackmun, Kennedy - **Cited by:** 1,721 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Overruled by Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997). - Negative treatments: 8 - Distinguished by: 13 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431671 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that it is a “rare case” where a civil fine implicates the protections of double jeopardy and specifically limiting such a case to situations in which the amount of the sanction is “overwhelmingly disproportionate” to the damages caused by the wrongful conduct and, thu… - recognizing that where FCA forfeitures were allowed for numerous projects on which no actual pecuniary loss had been incurred, the government’s “injuries, of course, included not merely the amount of the fraud itself, but also ancillary costs, such as the costs of detection an… - holding that “a defendant who has already been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as deterrent or retribution,” given the constitut… - holding that the imposition of a civil penalty of $2,000 per claim plus twice the government’s actual damages and costs against an individual who was previously convicted of submitting 65 false claims to the government constitutes “punishment” for purposes of double jeopardy - stating rule that government may demand “rough remedial justice” in the form of monetary compensation for expenses incurred in dealing with a criminal defendant’s behavior “without being deemed to have imposed a second punishment for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis” ## Opinion text Justice Kennedy, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court and write only to discuss the limits of today’s holding. As the Court points out, our holding will not undermine the Government’s efforts to enforce the laws effectively, since appropriate alternatives remain to ensure the Government’s ability to make full use of the sanctions authorized by statute. Ante, at 450-451. Our rule permits the imposition in the ordinary case of at least a fixed penalty roughly proportionate to the damage caused or a rea *453 sonably liquidated amount, plus double damages. Ante, at 449. Today’s holding, I would stress, constitutes an objective rule that is grounded in the nature of the sanction and the facts of the particular case. It does not authorize courts to undertake a broad inquiry into the subjective purposes that may be thought to lie behind a given judicial proceeding. Cf. Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. S. 624, 635 (1988); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U. S. 144, 168-169 (1963). Such an inquiry would be amorphous and speculative, and would mire the courts in the quagmire of differentiating among the multiple purposes that underlie every proceeding, whether it be civil or criminal in name. It also would breed confusion among legislators who seek to structure the mechanisms of proper law enforcement within constitutional commands. In approaching the sometimes difficult question whether an enactment constitutes what must be deemed a punishment, we have recognized that a number of objective factors bear on the inquiry. Ibid. In the case before us, I agree with the Court that the controlling circumstance is whether the civil penalty imposed in the second proceeding bears any rational relation to the damages suffered by the Government. Here it does not, so it must be considered punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431671. Public record. Not legal advice.