Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Dual sovereignty doctrine
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
The dual sovereignty doctrine refers to the ability of separate sovereignties, such as separate states, to pursue the same case in criminal court when the offense committed impacts both jurisdictions. This doctrine establishes an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects individuals from being prosecuted more than once for the same offense.[1]
Background
- See also: United States v. Lanza and Heath v. Alabama
The dual sovereignty doctrine was instituted on the grounds that "different units of government may have different interests to serve in the definition of crimes and the enforcement of their laws, and where the different units have overlapping jurisdictions a person may engage in conduct that will violate the laws of more than one unit."[1] This doctrine was first applied in United States v. Lanza (1922), in which the federal government convicted an individual following a conviction for the same crime by a state court.[2]
The Supreme Court decision in Heath v. Alabama (1985) established the precedent for multiple states to pursue consecutive prosecutions against an individual for the same crime when the offense occurs within multiple states' jurisdictions. The decision in the case was guided by the dual sovereignty doctrine and argued that a state's sovereignty allows it to pursue independent prosecutions:
| “ | [W]hen a defendant in a single act violates the 'peace and dignity' of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct 'offences' for double jeopardy purposes. In applying the doctrine, the crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not from the Federal Government. [3] | ” |
| —Heath v. Alabama[4] | ||
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the dual sovereignty doctrine in Gamble v. United States (2019), holding that a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are not violated when prosecuted by two separate sovereignties for the same offense. In this case, state and federal governments both sought convictions for the same offense that violated state and federal laws. The court's opinion, delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, contended that:
| “ | As originally understood, then, an 'offence' is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. So where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two 'offences.' [3] | ” |
| —Samuel Alito, majority opinion in Gamble v. United States[5] | ||
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Legal Information Institute, "Dual Sovereignty Doctrine," accessed June 27, 2022
- ↑ Justia, "United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922)," accessed June 27, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Justia, "Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985)," accessed June 27, 2022
- ↑ Justia, "Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. _ (2019)," accessed June 27, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
