GAMBLE v. UNITED STATES

[Elderberry]

SCOTUSblog 6/17/2019

GAMBLE v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 17–646. Argued December 6, 2018—Decided June 17, 2019

Petitioner Gamble pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Alabama’s felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute. Federal prosecutors then indicted him for the same instance of possession under federal law. Gamble moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal indictment wasfor “the same offence” as the one at issue in his state conviction, thus exposing him to double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment. The District Court denied this motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doc¬trine, according to which two offenses “are not the ‘same offence’ ” for double jeopardy purposes if “prosecuted by different sovereigns,” Heath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 92. Gamble pleaded guilty to thefederal offense but appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The Elev¬enth Circuit affirmed.

Held: This Court declines to overturn the longstanding dual-sovereignty doctrine. Pp. 3–31.

(a) The dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment’s text. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being “twice put injeopardy” “for the same offence.” As originally understood, an “of¬fence” is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two “of-fences.” Gamble attempts to show from the Clause’s drafting history that Congress must have intended to bar successive prosecutions re¬gardless of the sovereign bringing the charge. But even if conjecturesabout subjective goals were allowed to inform this Court’s reading of the text, the Government’s contrary arguments on that score would prevail. Pp. 3–5.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions.

More: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

[jmyrlefuller]

Breaking
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf

Majority: Alito, joined by Thomas, Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh
Dissent: Gorsuch and Ginsburg

[Cyber Liberty]

Not surprising, the least controversial ruling due this week.  Next case!

[Elderberry]

Also posted in this thread: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,365521.msg1991904.html#new

GAMBLE v. UNITED STATES
« on: Today at 10:34:44 AM »

[Bill Cipher]

Not surprising, the least controversial ruling due this week.  Next case!

Agreed

[jmyrlefuller]

I think there is a case to be argued here, one that wasn't put before the court alas, that with the federal separation of powers, if a crime is nearly identical at the federal or state level, then one of the two levels never had the authority to pass the law in the first place.

[Elderberry]

State vs. Federal Prosecution

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-federal-prosecution.html

Learn what determines whether a state or the federal government prosecutes a criminal case.

Dual Sovereignty

As long as there is a sufficient federal “nexus,” the United States government can regulate almost any kind of behavior. That means, for example, that it’s possible to violate federal law through conduct that occurs solely on one state's land.

    DOUBLE JEOPARDY? NO PROBLEM

    In some sense, it seems unfair for a defendant to undergo criminal prosecution more than once for the same alleged offense. After all, doesn’t the prohibition against double jeopardy prevent exactly that?

    Unfortunately for some defendants, the answer is no. The Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause prevents multiple prosecutions or punishments by the same “sovereign.” Successive state and federal prosecutions don’t violate the clause because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.

“You First”

In many instances, one government with jurisdiction over an offense will defer to another. The deferring government will step in only if the other prosecution fails. That said, sometimes both governments will pursue criminal charges.

[Bill Cipher]

I think there is a case to be argued here, one that wasn't put before the court alas, that with the federal separation of powers, if a crime is nearly identical at the federal or state level, then one of the two levels never had the authority to pass the law in the first place.

Not so. There are plenty of areas where there is concurrent federal and state authority. 

[Mod2]

Topics merged.