Gamble v. United States
| Gamble v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Terance Martez Gamble v. United States |
| Docket nos. | 17-646 |
| Citations | TBD U.S. ___ (more) |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Gamble v. United States is a pending 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 appeal arguing that doing so was double jeopardy was denied due to the exception. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018, and will decide whether the exception should be overturned.
Contents
Background[edit]
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 can be seen in mid 19th century Supreme Court decisions, and the 1959 cases of Abbate v. United States and Bartkus v. Illinois ruled in affirmation of the doctrine.[1][2]
Case[edit]
Origin and appeal[edit]
Terance Martez Gamble was found to be in possession of a gun in a 2015 traffic stop, which was illegal under both state and federal laws because he was a felon.[1] He was convicted under Alabama state law and given a 1 year sentence; he was also prosecuted under federal laws and pled guilty with a 46 month sentence, after the district court concluded that double jeopardy did not apply in this case.[2] Gamble appealed this decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who affirmed it based on the precedent of Abbate v. United States.[3]
Supreme Court[edit]
In June 2018 the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.[4] Gamble's petition to the Supreme Court noted that previously in 2016, Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas argued for a review of the separate sovereigns doctrine in a concurring opinion in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle; they said that "The matter warrants attention in a future case in which a defendant faces successive prosecutions by parts of the whole USA."[2][5][6][7]
Arguments[edit]
According to The Atlantic, the U.S. federal government contends 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".[1]
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 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", for the doctrine, and that the rising amount of federal criminal laws and state-federal task forces means there will be more dual state-federal prosecution.[8]
Potential impact[edit]
The case has been analyzed in the context of the Special Counsel investigation into the Trump campaign; if the separate sovereigns doctrine is overturned, a pardon of federal charges from Donald Trump may prevent state prosecution.[1][5] 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."[1]
According to Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman, 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.[5]
References[edit]
- ^ a b c d e Bertrand, Natasha (25 September 2018). "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates". The Atlantic. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ a b c Chemerinsky, Erwin (26 September 2018). "Chemerinsky: Another blockbuster Supreme Court term is ahead". ABA Journal. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ United States of America v. Terance Martez Gamble (11th Cir. 28 July 2017). Text
- ^ Vazquez, Megan (28 June 2018). "Supreme Court agrees to hear 'double jeopardy' case in the fall". CNN. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ a b c Clark, Dan M.; Hamilton, Cody (2 July 2018). "Upcoming SCOTUS Case Could Complicate NY Effort to Close Double Jeopardy 'Loophole'". New York Law Journal. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ Matt, Ford (29 June 2018). "What the New Supreme Court Will Decide". The New Republic. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ Volokh, Eugene (28 June 2018). "The Double Jeopardy Clause, and Federal Prosecutions After State Prosecutions". Reason. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- ^ "Gamble v. United States". American Civil Liberties Union. 12 September 2018. Retrieved 27 September 2018.
