Berkman v. United States

Background

Two people arrested in June 1917 — Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman — had $25,000 cash deposited in the District Court’s registry in place of bail. The clerk later paid the funds to the defendants’ counsel on court direction, but retained one percent under § 828 of the U.S. Revised Statutes as compensation. The defendants sought return of that one percent and challenged the statute as inapplicable to criminal cases and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, Article IV’s privileges and immunities clause, and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive bail.

Reasoning

The Court framed the main question as whether the statute’s one percent fee could be applied to cash deposited in lieu of bail and whether that application violated constitutional protections. Relying on the record, the Court concluded the defendants had voluntarily deposited the money and later asked the clerk to pay it out, thereby obtaining his services. Because the transactions were voluntary, the Court held that no property was taken without due process or for public use, no privilege or immunity was denied, and there was no showing of excessive bail. The Justices therefore found the constitutional challenges insubstantial and declined to exercise jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The decision allows clerks to retain the one percent statutory fee when they receive, keep, and pay out cash deposited in lieu of bail, at least under the facts shown here. People who voluntarily deposit bail funds and then request payment cannot rely on these constitutional claims to recover that fee. The ruling dismissed the case, ending this particular challenge.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices, Holmes and Brandeis, dissented from the dismissal, but the opinion does not state their reasons.