Gamble v. United States
139 S. Ct. 1960
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Terance Gamble was stopped in Alabama; police found a handgun and he pleaded guilty in state court to possession by a person convicted of a crime of violence under Alabama law.
- The United States subsequently indicted Gamble under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for felon‑in‑possession arising from the same conduct; Gamble moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
- Lower courts denied the motion and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed under the dual‑sovereignty doctrine; Gamble preserved the issue for appeal after pleading guilty to the federal charge.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether to overrule the dual‑sovereignty rule that permits successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns.
- The Court affirmed the dual‑sovereignty doctrine, holding that the Fifth Amendment bars successive prosecutions only for the “same offence” as defined by a single sovereign’s law, not merely by identical conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gamble) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions by different sovereigns for the same conduct | The Clause incorporates common‑law protections so a foreign or state prosecution should bar a later prosecution by another sovereign; dual‑sovereignty departs from original meaning | "Offence" is defined by a sovereign’s law; separate sovereigns create separate offences so successive prosecutions are permitted | The Court held the dual‑sovereignty doctrine stands: prosecutions by different sovereigns are not for the "same offence" under the Fifth Amendment |
| Whether founding‑era history and treatises require overruling dual‑sovereignty | Founding‑era and early treatises/treatises show foreign acquittals or convictions barred retrial, supporting overruling | The historical record is ambiguous or weak; many precedents and textual reading support dual sovereignty | The Court found the historical evidence inadequate to overcome 170 years of precedent and textual analysis; declined to overrule |
| Whether incorporation of the Double Jeopardy Clause against the States undermines dual‑sovereignty | Incorporation makes the prior federal‑only rationale obsolete and supports ending the exception | Incorporation does not change the textual meaning of "same offence" or the sovereign‑based analysis; precedent remains binding | The Court rejected the incorporation argument as insufficient to overturn precedent |
| Whether practical changes (federal criminal law expansion) justify overruling | Expansion of federal crimes increases risk of abusive successive prosecutions and counsels overruling | Practical concerns do not prove original error; Blockburger and prosecutorial policies limit disruption | The Court found practical changes unpersuasive to disturb long‑standing precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 (U.S. 1847) (early discussion rejecting that federal power precludes state prosecution)
- Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13 (U.S. 1852) (explaining an "offence" is the transgression of a sovereign's law)
- United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560 (U.S. 1850) (recognizing same act can violate state and federal law)
- United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) (reaffirming dual‑sovereignty principles)
- United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922) (holding an act denounced by national and state sovereignties may be punished by each)
- Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959) (reaffirming dual‑sovereignty doctrine; later reaffirmed)
- Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959) (refusing to overrule dual‑sovereignty)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for determining whether two statutes constitute the same offence)
- Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1 (U.S. 1820) (discussed interplay of state and federal jurisdiction and plea‑in‑bar principles)
- United States v. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184 (U.S. 1820) (treated universal crimes differently from offenses punishable by separate sovereigns)