## 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

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a federal prosecution following a state conviction based on the same conduct.
2. 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.


Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019)