Gamble v. United States

Last updated

Gamble v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 2018
Decided June 17, 2019
Full case nameTerance Martez Gamble, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no. 17-646
Citations587 U.S. 678 ( more )
139 S. Ct. 1960; 204 L. Ed. 2d 322
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Gamble, 694 F. App'x 750 (11th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018).
Questions presented
Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Holding
The court declined to overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine, concluding that historical precedent has held that it is a part of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGinsburg
DissentGorsuch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns". Terance Martez Gamble was prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon. His argument that doing so was double jeopardy was found unpersuasive due to the exception. In June 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision 7–2, with the majority opinion stating that there was not sufficient cause for overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine. [1]

Contents

The separate sovereigns doctrine holds that because the federal and state government are "separate sovereigns", the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to prosecution of the same crime under both federal and state laws. The doctrine is more than 150 years old. States can (and some do) have "economy of prosecution" policies, which make it a policy to not concurrently expend resources to prosecute offenses against their state laws where an alleged perpetrator is arrested and being tried for equal or greater offenses, similar or identical to alleged offenses against the laws of the prosecution's state. In those states, the district or states' attorneys will only move to prosecute an alleged perpetrator should (1) the initial prosecution fail to convict, or (2) the case is abandoned before a verdict. In all such instances, the separate sovereigns doctrine retains the authority to prosecute at the discretion of the state, sister state, or federal government. In the 1959 cases of Abbate v. United States [2] and Bartkus v. Illinois , [3] the Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine. [4] [5] The doctrine has been criticized by many scholars as having no basis in the text of the clause. [6]

Case background

In November 2015, Terance Martez Gamble was pulled over in Mobile, Alabama for a damaged headlight. After a search of the vehicle, a handgun was found which was illegal under both Alabama state and federal laws because he was a felon. [4] He was convicted under Alabama state law and given a one-year sentence. He was also prosecuted under federal laws, and after the district court concluded that double jeopardy did not apply in this case, he pled guilty and received a 46-month sentence. [5] Gamble appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who affirmed the district court's decision based on the precedent of Abbate. [7]

Supreme Court

In June 2018 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. [8] Gamble's petition to the Supreme Court noted that in 2016, Supreme Court Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas had argued for a review of the separate sovereigns doctrine in a concurring opinion in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle ; [9] Ginsburg's opinion, joined by Thomas, stated that "The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole USA." [5] [10] [11] [12]

Amicus briefs

According to The Atlantic , the U.S. federal government contended that "overturning the dual-sovereignty doctrine would upend the country’s federalist system", and that the increasing number of federal criminal laws means that it is important that states be allowed to "preserve their own sphere of influence and prevent federal encroachment on law enforcement". [4]

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, and the Constitutional Accountability Center filed a joint amicus brief on the case, arguing that there is no textual basis for the doctrine in the Double Jeopardy Clause, which states that "[n]o person shall be ... subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", and that the rising amount of federal criminal laws and state-federal task forces means there will be more dual state-federal prosecution. [13]

The case has been analyzed in the context of the Special Counsel investigation into the Trump campaign; if the separate sovereigns doctrine had been overruled, a pardon for federal crimes from President Donald Trump would have prevented state prosecution. [4] [10] United States Senator Orrin Hatch filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing against the separate sovereigns doctrine. A spokesperson for him denied any relation of the brief to the investigation, saying that Hatch wants the doctrine to be overturned due to "the rapid expansion of both the scope and substance of modern federal criminal law". [4]

Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman wrote that state and federal charges usually have "no overlap, or almost no overlap, that would ring Fifth Amendment chimes in the absence of the dual sovereign analysis", and so the impact of overturning the separate sovereigns doctrine would be minimal. [10]

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were originally scheduled to be heard on December 5, 2018, but were postponed due to a day of mourning for George H. W. Bush, who died on November 30, 2018. [14] Oral arguments were heard on December 6.

Observers found the Court to be concerned about overruling 170 years of the doctrine and the instability that would result with this change, but did affirm that there is concern from academics and judiciaries on the doctrine's effects. [15]

Decision

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 17, 2019, affirming the lower court's decision. [1] Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 7–2 majority opinion in which the majority held that there was not sufficient cause for overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine. Alito highlighted that it is written into law that a person may be tried for the same offense in both national and international courts, so the exception for double jeopardy between state and federal trials already exists. [16] Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined Alito's opinion, wrote a concurring opinion to state that the historical record of the double jeopardy clause does not justify overturning the dual sovereignty principle in this case, [16] but urged the court to be more willing to overturn precedents when they are "demonstrably erroneous". [17]

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch wrote separate dissenting opinions. Quoting directly from an actual usage of all caps in The Federalist Papers , Ginsburg wrote: "Different parts of the 'WHOLE' United States should not be positioned to prosecute a defendant a second time for the same offense". [16] Gorsuch wrote: "When governments may unleash all their might in multiple prosecutions against an individual, exhausting themselves only when those who hold the reins of power are content with the result, it is the poor and the weak, and the unpopular and controversial, who suffer first—and there is nothing to stop them from being the last". [16]

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence except when the defendant is a servicemember as the courts have ruled that the military courts are a separate sovereign, therefore servicemembers can be held in two separate trials for the exact same charges; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations. It is derived from the Latin term plenus, 'full'.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes." The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of Appeals read the holding in Grady v. Corbin (1990) too broadly.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from relitigating a question already decided in favor of a defendant at a previous trial. Here, the guarantee against double jeopardy enforceable through the Fifth Amendment provided that where the defendant was acquitted of robbing one victim, the government could not prosecute the criminal defendant in a second trial for a different victim in the same robbery.

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."

Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands 200 years later did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.

United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. 184 (1820), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that felonies committed in international waters must be specifically defined by Congress, and the Offenses Clause is broad enough that Congress may criminalize offenses on U.S. ships anchored in foreign ports. Essentially, United States v. Furlong made a distinction between international and national jurisdiction. When international law applies, the first state to prosecute "uses up" the international law, rendering subsequent prosecutions impossible. However, the prohibition against double jeopardy does not apply if two states have overlapping national jurisdiction and both decide to prosecute.

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American (Indian) who has already been prosecuted by the tribe.

Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the prosecution of a conspiracy in federal court under federal law when that same conspiracy has already resulted in a conviction in state court under state law.

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Court of Indian Offenses is an Article I Court operated by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Also known as a "CFR" Court, a Court of Indian Offenses has criminal and civil jurisdiction over Native Americans in Indian Country, on reservations and other Indian trust land that lacks its own tribal court system. Criminally, the Court of Indian Offenses is a limited jurisdiction court that tries misdemeanor violations of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as violations of tribal codes, with permission of the tribe. Civilly, the CFR court holds full civil jurisdiction over matters in its territory.

Denezpi v. United States, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.

References

  1. 1 2 Gamble v. United States,No. 17-646 , 587 U.S. ___(2019).
  2. ↑ Abbate v. United States , 359 U.S. 187 (1959).
  3. ↑ Bartkus v. Illinois , 359 U.S. 121 (1959).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Bertrand, Natasha (September 25, 2018). "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates". The Atlantic . Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 Chemerinsky, Erwin (September 26, 2018). "Chemerinsky: Another blockbuster Supreme Court term is ahead". ABA Journal. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  6. ↑ Livni, Ephrat (October 2, 2018). "A new Supreme Court case aims to close the huge loophole in US "double jeopardy" law". Quartz . Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  7. ↑ United States v. Gamble, 694F. App'x750 ( 11th Cir. 2017).
  8. ↑ Vazquez, Megan (June 28, 2018). "Supreme Court agrees to hear 'double jeopardy' case in the fall". CNN. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  9. ↑ Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle , No. 15–108 , 579 U.S. ___(2016).
  10. 1 2 3 Clark, Dan M.; Hamilton, Cody (July 2, 2018). "Upcoming SCOTUS Case Could Complicate NY Effort to Close Double Jeopardy 'Loophole'". New York Law Journal. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  11. ↑ Matt, Ford (June 29, 2018). "What the New Supreme Court Will Decide". The New Republic. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
  12. ↑ Liptak, Adam (September 30, 2018). "A Quiet Docket May Be Just the Right Medicine for the Supreme Court". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  13. ↑ "Gamble v. United States". American Civil Liberties Union. September 12, 2018. Retrieved September 27, 2018.
  14. ↑ Ruiz, Joe (December 3, 2018). "Supreme Court postpones arguments for Bush national day of mourning". CNN. Retrieved December 3, 2018.
  15. ↑ de Vogue, Ariane (November 6, 2018). "Supreme Court double jeopardy case could impact presidential pardon power". CNN . Retrieved November 6, 2018.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Barnes, Robert (June 17, 2019). "In ruling with implications for Trump's pardon power, Supreme Court continues to allow state and federal prosecutions for same offense". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  17. ↑ Stemple, Jonathan (June 17, 2019). "Justice Thomas urges U.S. Supreme Court to feel free to reverse precedents". Reuters. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.