# Hudson v. United States > Supreme Court of the United States · December 10, 1997 · 522 U.S. 93 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433543 ## Case - **Full name:** HUDSON Et Al. v. UNITED STATES - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** December 10, 1997 - **Citations:** 522 U.S. 93; 118 S. Ct. 488; 139 L. Ed. 2d 450; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 7497 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Soutee, Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scaua, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg - **Cited by:** 1,284 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by State v. Baehler, 604 N.W.2d 601 (2000). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433543 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that “there is obvious sense in employing common criteria to point up the criminal nature of a statute for purposes of both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,” and “once it is understood that a legislature intended a penalty to be treated as civil in character, that penal… - explaining that “[wjhether a particular punishment is criminal or civil is, at least initially, a matter of statutory construction” and that “[a] court must first ask whether the legislature, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a p… - concluding that although the monetary sanctions at issue were “intended to deter future wrongdoing, [they] also serve[d] to promote the stability of the banking industry” and thus, “[t]o hold that the mere presence of a deterrent purpose renders such sanctions ‘criminal’ ... w… - explaining that the Federal Fifth Amendment Double 2 Allaire's original motion for summary judgment cites the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution on this point. 13 Jeopardy Clause "protects only against imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same off… - finding that money penalties have not historically been viewed as punishment and quoting Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 400, 58 S.Ct. *388 630, 633, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938) “the payment of fixed or variable sums of money [is a] sanction which ha[s] been recognized as enforce… ## Opinion text *106 Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring. I wholly agree with the Court’s conclusion that Halper’s test for whether a sanction is “punitive” was ill considered and unworkable. Ante, at 101-102. Indeed, it was the absurdity of trying to force the Halper analysis upon the Montana tax scheme at issue in Department of Revenue of Mont v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S. 767 (1994), that prompted me to focus on the prior question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause even contains a multiple-punishments prong. See id., at 802-803 . That evaluation led me to the conclusion that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment, and that we should therefore “put the Halper genie back in the bottle.” Id., at 803-805 . Today’s opinion uses a somewhat different bottle than I would, returning the law to its state immediately prior to Halper — which acknowledged a constitutional prohibition of multiple punishments but required successive criminal prosecutions. So long as that requirement is maintained, our multiple-punishments jurisprudence essentially duplicates what I believe to be the correct double jeopardy law, and will be as harmless in the future as it was pre-Halper. Accordingly, I am pleased to concur. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433543. Public record. Not legal advice.