Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
| Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 13, 2016 Decided June 9, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Petitioner v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle, et al. |
| Docket no. | 15-108 |
| Citations | 579 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000 | |
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case, the court considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[1] In essence, this clause establishes that an individual cannot be tried for the same offense twice under the same sovereignty. The petitioner claimed that Puerto Rico possesses a different sovereignty because of the island's current political status while others claimed that it does not—including the respondent, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, and the Solicitor General of the United States.[2] Finally, in a 6-2 decision, the court affirmed that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws. Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 9, 2016. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. [3]
Political implications
The argument appears to diminish the constitutional stature that the Puerto Rican government thought it has since 1952. [4]
See also
References
- ^ Liptak, Adam (2016-01-13). "Justices Hear Case Over Puerto Rico's Sovereignty". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-01-13.
- ^ Farias, Christian (2015-12-30). "Puerto Rico Is Up In Arms Because The Obama Administration Basically Just Called It A Colony". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-01-13.
- ^ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/puerto-rico-v-sanchez-valle/
- ^ http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-setback-for-puerto-ricos-independent-powers/
External links
- Slip opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court