United States v. Ward - 448 U.S. 242, 100 S. Ct. 2636 (1980)

Rule:

In the light of what the court has found to be overwhelming evidence that Congress intended to create a penalty civil in all respects and quite weak evidence of any countervailing punitive purpose or effect it would be quite anomalous to hold that § 311(b)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.S § 1321(b)(6), created a criminal penalty for the purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause but a civil penalty for all other purposes.

Facts:

After respondent discharged oil that contaminated a tributary, the United States assessed a civil penalty against respondent pursuant to § 311(b)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1321(b)(6). Respondent filed suit in the district court, arguing that the reporting requirements of the statute violated its privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The district court imposed a penalty after a jury trial. The court of appeals reversed, holding that § 311(b)(6) was sufficiently punitive to trigger the protections of U.S. Const. amend. V against compulsory self-incrimination. The United States appealed. 

Issue:

Was the penalty imposed by § 311(b)(6) sufficiently punitive to trigger the protections of U.S. Const. amend. V against compulsory self-incrimination? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed and found that Congress had intended to impose a civil penalty under § 311(b)(6). The Court found that Congress had not provided for sanctions so punitive as to transform what was intended to be a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. The Court rejected respondent's argument that the penalty was quasi-criminal in nature. The Court held that the penalty was much more analogous to traditional civil damages and that there was only weak evidence of any countervailing punitive purpose or effect.