Gamble v. United States
139 S.Ct. 1960 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the federal government from prosecuting a defendant for conduct that has already been the subject of a state prosecution, because the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.
Facts:
- Terance Gamble was previously convicted of second-degree robbery, a 'crime of violence' under Alabama law.
- In November 2015, a police officer in Mobile, Alabama, pulled Gamble over for a damaged headlight.
- The officer smelled marijuana, which led to a search of Gamble's car.
- During the search, the officer found a loaded 9-mm handgun.
- Gamble's possession of the handgun violated Alabama's law prohibiting individuals convicted of a crime of violence from possessing a firearm.
- The same act of possessing the handgun also violated a federal statute that prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison.
Procedural Posture:
- Terance Gamble pleaded guilty in an Alabama state court to a state charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Subsequently, federal prosecutors indicted Gamble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for the federal crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm, arising from the same incident.
- Gamble filed a motion to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that it violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The District Court denied Gamble's motion to dismiss, relying on the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
- Gamble entered a conditional guilty plea to the federal charge, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
- Gamble, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, upholding the District Court's application of the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the dual-sovereignty doctrine, which permits successive prosecutions by state and federal governments for the same underlying conduct, violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No, the dual-sovereignty doctrine does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The Clause prohibits being twice put in jeopardy for the 'same offence,' not for the same conduct. An 'offence' is defined by the law it violates, and because the federal government and a state are separate sovereigns, they have separate laws. Therefore, a single act that violates the laws of both sovereigns constitutes two separate 'offences.' This doctrine is not an exception to the Clause but follows from its text and original meaning, is supported by 170 years of this Court's precedent, and is not undermined by weak historical counter-arguments.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the dual-sovereignty doctrine violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The doctrine is misguided because, in the United States, ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, not in separate state and federal governments. These governments are parts of 'ONE WHOLE' and should not be able to accomplish together what neither could do alone: prosecute a citizen twice for the same offense. The original justifications for the doctrine have been eroded by the incorporation of the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states and the vast expansion of federal criminal law, which has increased the potential for oppressive successive prosecutions.
Dissenting - Justice Gorsuch
Yes, the dual-sovereignty doctrine violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The 'separate sovereigns exception' finds no support in the Constitution's text, original public meaning, structure, or history. The term 'same offence' refers to the underlying criminal transgression, not the specific statute that was violated. The common law at the time of the founding barred successive prosecutions by different sovereigns. The Court's doctrine misuses the concept of federalism to threaten, rather than protect, individual liberty by allowing two governments to pursue an individual for the same crime until they achieve a satisfactory result.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I agree with the majority that the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be upheld because the historical record does not demonstrate that it is erroneous. The Founders did not foresee the extensive overlap in federal and state criminal law that exists today, and the common law at the time was not settled on this issue. While I believe the Court should not hesitate to overrule 'demonstrably erroneous' precedents regardless of stare decisis factors, the petitioner has not met that high bar here. Thus, our longstanding precedent stands.
Analysis:
This decision emphatically reaffirms the dual-sovereignty doctrine, solidifying the legal framework that allows both federal and state governments to prosecute an individual for the same criminal act. By rejecting arguments based on incorporation and the expansion of federal law, the Court signaled a very high bar for overturning long-standing precedent in this area. The ruling ensures that state and federal prosecutors can continue to bring separate cases for the same conduct, which can be used to pursue different law enforcement interests or to seek a more severe penalty if one sovereign believes the other's was too lenient. The strong dissents suggest continued academic and judicial debate, but the majority's firm stance makes future legal challenges to the core doctrine unlikely to succeed.
