Gamble v. United States

Background

Terance Gamble, a man stopped in Alabama and later convicted under state law for possessing a firearm after a prior felony, was then indicted in federal court for the same incident under the federal felon-in-possession law. Gamble argued the federal prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment’s ban on being tried twice for the same offense. Lower courts denied his claim, citing the long-standing dual-sovereignty principle that permits separate sovereigns to prosecute the same conduct.

Reasoning

The Court declined to overrule the dual-sovereignty doctrine. It explained that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars being tried twice “for the same offence,” and historically an “offence” was understood as the violation of a particular law, which is defined by a sovereign. The majority relied on a long chain of precedent and found the historical and treatise evidence offered against the doctrine too weak to overcome stare decisis. The Court also rejected arguments that applying the Clause to the States or the growth of federal criminal laws required abandoning the doctrine.

Real world impact

The decision leaves in place the rule that state and federal governments may, in many cases, bring separate prosecutions based on the same conduct. Defendants may face consecutive state and federal penalties for a single episode. The Court noted, however, that existing limits, like the requirement that different statutes have different elements, will curb some duplicative prosecutions.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices dissented or wrote separately, arguing the rule is wrong on historical or structural grounds and would allow unfair double punishment; one Justice concurred but would revisit stare decisis principles.