Gamble v. United States - (Court upholds dual sovereigns exception to double jeopardy clause)

Holding : The dual sovereignty doctrine—under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns—is upheld.

Judgment : Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

I am highly disappointed, but not the least bit surprised by the outcome. Unfortunately, expediency has triumped over principle and both the liberal and conservative justices, other than Ginsburg and Gorsuch, were complicit.

Bad news for Manafort and fat donald and I’m very surprised that Ginsburg and Gorsuch joined in on a dissenting opinion.

Not necessarily. New York’s prohibition on double jeopardy in their state constitution is tougher than that of the federal constitution and today’s decision will have no effect on that.

Could you explain this in a little more detail? You know, because there may, uh, be some other people here that don’t understand it too well…


Just as surprising to see the ideological range on the concurrence.

That is a horrible vote.

Based, I guess, on long standing precedence. After incorporating so much of “due process” into the Constitution under the 14th it seems odd that they would exclude what is truly a due process issue and allow people to be tried twice for the same action.

Why would a bunch of career lawyers possibly think this is a good idea? Let me think…

Exactly what this is about! But hey, I’m sure when it’s used on YOU, or your family member, you will love it! At least you will have the satisfaction of “getting Trump!”

Joy! Government is all! Worship the state! Utopia comrade!

Not worried since I’m not a criminal and neither are members of my family.

1 Like

This is a really good point.

After the clumsy forays into “substantive” due process, this looks like a terrible swing and miss on a true due process issue.

Not exactly because it would require the same crime to be committed in all 50 states at the same time.
In practice assuming some crime could be committed in all 50 states that would be 50 different charges each one charged once by the state in which the crime was commissioned.

No, not 51 times. Only two.

State laws only apply in the state in which the crime occured - so they could be tried federally, and by the state the act occured in (assuming that state has a law that mirrors the federal law, and vice-versa). But that’s all.

Vengeance, not justice.

As a lawyer, yes. In theory it is possible.

1 Like