Gamble v. United States

Background

Terance Gamble was stopped in Alabama, where police found a loaded gun; he pleaded guilty under Alabama law for possession by a person previously convicted of a violent crime. Federal prosecutors then indicted him under a federal felon-in-possession statute for the same instance of possession, and Gamble argued the federal case violated the Fifth Amendment’s ban on being tried twice for the same offense, but lower courts rejected his claim under the dual-sovereignty doctrine.

Reasoning

The Court explained that an “offence” was historically understood as the violation of a sovereign’s law and that longstanding precedent treats a crime under one sovereign’s law as legally distinct from the same conduct punished by another sovereign. After surveying history, earlier cases, and stare decisis, the majority concluded the Double Jeopardy Clause does not prevent successive prosecutions by different governments and declined to overturn the dual-sovereignty rule.

Real world impact

Because the Court left the dual-sovereignty doctrine intact, both state and federal authorities may in many cases prosecute the same person for the same underlying conduct so long as the charges are brought by different governments. That preserves current practice but leaves open other legal limits, like the Blockburger test (a rule comparing what each law requires) and Justice Department policies that sometimes restrict repeated federal prosecutions.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the Clause should bar successive state and federal prosecutions, and one Justice concurred separately about stare decisis; they would have narrowed or overturned the doctrine.