United States v. Arjona

Last updated

United States v. Arjona
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided March 7, 1887
Full case nameUnited States v. Arjona
Citations120 U.S. 479 ( more )
Holding
It is not necessary for Congress to announce that a statute is intended to enforce international criminal law before that statute may be enforced under the Offenses Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityWaite, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Offenses Clause

United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that it is not necessary for Congress to announce that a statute is intended to enforce international criminal law before that statute may be enforced under the Offenses Clause. [1] [2]

Contents

Description

The challenged law in this case criminalized the counterfeiting of foreign governments' securities. [2]

Related Research Articles

A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In most jurisdictions, such periods exist for both criminal law and civil law such as contract law and property law, though often under different names and with varying details.

The Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...". The Clause protects the defendant from delay between the presentation of the indictment or similar charging instrument and the beginning of trial.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a "not guilty" verdict

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the criminal prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Attorney</span> Chief prosecutor representing the United States federal government

United States attorneys are officials of the U.S. Department of Justice who serve as the chief federal law enforcement officers in each of the 94 U.S. federal judicial districts. Each U.S. attorney serves as the United States' chief federal criminal prosecutor in their judicial district and represents the U.S. federal government in civil litigation in federal and state court within their geographic jurisdiction. U.S. attorneys must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, after which they serve four-year terms.

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judges and lawyers agree on the meaning of the clause with respect to the recognition of judgments rendered by one state in the courts of another. Barring exceptional circumstances, one state must enforce a judgment by a court in another, unless that court lacked jurisdiction, even if the enforcing court otherwise disagrees with the result. At present, it is widely agreed that this clause of the Constitution has a minimal impact on a court's choice of law decision provided that no state's sovereignty is infringed, although this clause of the Constitution was once interpreted to have greater impact.

In United States constitutional law, the police power is the capacity of the states and the federal government to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. As a result, the police power is primarily concentrated within state governments, while the federal government possesses it in limited contexts where it has an express power, such as over conduct occurring within the territories of the United States and activities related to interstate commerce.

Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case, seeking pre-enforcement review, that held in the majority that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives and banned doctors from advising their use. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law. The same statute would be challenged again just five years later in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

In American constitutional law, a statute may be void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand what acts or duties are required or restricted. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

The crime against nature or unnatural act has historically been a legal term in English-speaking states identifying forms of sexual behavior not considered natural or decent and are legally punishable offenses. Sexual practices that have historically been considered to be "crimes against nature" include masturbation, sodomy and bestiality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edmunds Act</span> US federal law

The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by President Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony in federal territories, punishable by "a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years". The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation", thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also made the offense of unlawful cohabitation much easier to prove than polygamy misdemeanor and made it illegal for polygamists or cohabitants to vote, hold public office, or serve on juries in federal territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other amendments, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal enclave</span> Parcel of land which is within a state but under federal jurisdiction

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state considered under the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States. These enclaves are used for the many different functions of the U.S. federal government including post offices, arsenals, dams, road, etc.; many are usually owned, secured, and administered by the U.S. federal government itself. The U.S., in many cases, has also received similar jurisdictional authority over privately owned properties which it leases, as well as privately owned and occupied properties which are located within the exterior boundaries of a large area which a state has ceded jurisdiction to.

<i>Posse comitatus</i> Aspect of common law

The posse comitatus, frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare. It may be called by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given the imminence of actual damage. The posse comitatus as an English jurisprudentially defined doctrine dates back to 9th-century England and the campaigns of Alfred the Great, and before in ancient custom and law of locally martialed forces, simultaneous thereafter with the officiation of sheriff nomination to keep the regnant peace. There must be a lawful reason for a posse, which can never be used for lawlessness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United States</span>

The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the supreme law is the nation's Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that interpreted the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court was asked to rule on whether a statute that imposed mandatory monetary penalties on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was enacted in violation of that clause, as the lower court had held.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Waite Court</span>

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offenses Clause</span> Clause in the United States Constitution

The Offenses Clause, also known as the "Define and Punish Clause", is the tenth clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It grants Congress the power to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations." The clause contains the only specific enumerated power in the Constitution that extends Congress' authority outside the territorial limits of the United States.

References

  1. United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887).
  2. 1 2 Lieberman, Jethro K. (1999). "Piracy". A Practical Companion to the Constitution. p. 351.