The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed the long-established precedent that allows both state and federal authorities to prosecute a person for the same offense. The ruling rejected arguments that the practice violates the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights, which prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote for the majority; Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Since the 1850s, the court has allowed an exception to the Constitution's double-jeopardy prohibition on the theory that the federal and state governments are separate constitutional actors with their own sovereign authority.
Monday's case, Gamble v. U.S., represented a concerted effort by groups of conservatives and liberals alike to persuade the court that the exception exposes defendants to the potential harassment, trauma, expense and sometimes extra punishment the double jeopardy clause was designed to prevent.
The case was brought by Terance Gamble, who was convicted of robbery in Mobile County, Alabama, in 2008 and two domestic violence charges in 2013. Under both state and federal law, such a convicted felon may not possess a firearm.
But police found one in Gamble's car when he was stopped in 2015. Gamble pleaded guilty to the state charges and was sentenced to a year in prison. Federal prosecutors also brought charges, and he received a lengthier sentence with that conviction.
He said that violated the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment, which prohibits more than one prosecution or punishment for the same offense.
But the Supreme Court has long permitted successive prosecutions and punishments if one is brought by state prosecutors and the other by the federal government.
In more modern times, it has been a handy tool for enforcing civil rights. For instance, federal prosecutors brought charges against the Los Angeles police officers who beat motorist Rodney King in California after state trials ended in acquittals.
Before Gamble v. U.S. was argued, some joked that it should be redubbed Manafort v. Mueller. That is because of plans by some states to prosecute former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under their own tax evasion laws should President Donald Trump pardon Manafort on his federal convictions.
But long before that, some critics have questioned the separate sovereigns doctrine. The motivation for the court to accept a case came from liberal Justice Ginsburg, who was joined in an opinion two years ago by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.
"The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct," Ginsburg wrote in 2016. "Current 'separate sovereigns' doctrine hardly serves that objective."
At oral argument, Ginsburg called the federal and state prosecutions a "double whammy."
But her colleagues seemed more concerned about overturning such an established part of the law.
The federal government and the states argue that they have their own interests in upholding their laws, and that they do not abuse the right. Gamble's case was a rarity, they said.
"Each state has a strong interest in its sovereign power to prosecute violations of its laws regardless of the prosecutorial decisions of other sovereigns, whether the federal government or other states," said a brief filed by Texas and 35 other states.
At the same time, more than 20 states have their own restrictions on prosecuting crimes for which an individual has already been prosecuted, as does the Department of Justice.
NW News on 06/18/2019