Facts
- In 2015, Terance Martez Gamble was stopped in Mobile, Alabama for a damaged headlight; an officer searched his car and found a loaded handgun.
- Because Gamble had a prior robbery conviction, Alabama charged him under its felon-in-possession law.
- Gamble pleaded guilty in state court and was sentenced to one year in prison.
- While the state case was pending, federal prosecutors indicted Gamble under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for the same instance of firearm possession.
- Gamble moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that a second prosecution for the same conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The district court denied the motion, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
- The Supreme Court granted review to consider whether to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
Issues
- Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a federal prosecution following a state conviction based on the same conduct.
- Whether the Court should overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine as inconsistent with the text and original meaning of “same offence.”
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding 7–2 that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive state and federal prosecutions arising from the same conduct.
- The Court declined to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine.
- The majority reasoned that an “offence” is defined by a sovereign’s law; different sovereigns create different offences even when addressing identical conduct.
- The Court relied on historical practice and long-standing precedent recognizing the doctrine and found no sufficient justification to discard it under stare decisis.
- Justice Thomas concurred, emphasizing that demonstrably erroneous precedent should not be followed, but concluding the doctrine accords with the Fifth Amendment.
- Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the doctrine defeats the Double Jeopardy Clause’s protection against multiple prosecutions for the same wrong.
Legal Principles
- The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same offence, not multiple prosecutions for the same conduct.
- Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, a state and the federal government may prosecute the same act without violating double jeopardy because each prosecution enforces a different sovereign’s law.
- The doctrine is treated as flowing from the meaning of “offence” rather than as an exception to double jeopardy protection.
- Stare decisis strongly supports retaining long-established double jeopardy doctrine absent a special justification; incorporation against the states changes who is protected, not the meaning of “same offence.”
Conclusion
The Court reaffirmed that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits successive prosecutions by different sovereigns, so Gamble’s federal felon-in-possession case could proceed despite his prior state conviction based on the same firearm possession.