John Hudson, Larry Baresel, and Jack Butler Rackley v. United States (522 U.S. 93)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 10, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 522 U.S. 93 · 118 S. Ct. 488
- Decided
- December 10, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1997
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Rehnquist
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
CHIEF Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. The Government administratively imposed monetary penalties and occupational debarment on petitioners for violation of federal banking statutes, and later criminally indicted them for essentially the same conduct. We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not a bar to the later criminal prosecution because the administrative proceedings were civil, not criminal. Our reasons for so holding in large part disavow the method of analysis used in United States v. Halper, 490 U. S. 435, 448 (1989), and reaffirm the previously established rule exemplified in United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248-249 (1980). During the early and mid-1980’s, petitioner John Hudson was the chairman and controlling shareholder of the First National Bank of Tipton (Tipton) and the First National Bank of Hammon (Hammon). During the same period, petitioner Jack Rackley was president of Tipton and a member of the board of directors of Hammon, and petitioner Larry Baresel was a member of the board of directors of both Tipton and Hammon. An examination of Tipton and Hammon led the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to conclude that petitioners had used their bank positions to arrange a series of loans to third parties in violation of various federal banking statutes and regulations. According to the OCC, those…
Excerpt of a 21,661-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.