Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Gamble v. United States

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Gamble v. U.S.)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Gamble v. U.S.
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: December 6, 2018
Decided: June 17, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch • Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Gamble v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 6, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.[1]

On June 17, 2019, the court issued a 7-2 opinion upholding the judgment of the 11th Circuit. The court held that an individual charged for the same crime by two different sovereigns does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.[2] Click here for more information on the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Terance Martez Gamble was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed, arguing that the court was wrong in its ruling that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment did not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting him for a crime that the state of Alabama had already prosecuted him for.
  • The issue: Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.[3]
  • The outcome: On June 17, 2019, the court issued a 7-2 opinion upholding the judgment of the 11th Circuit. The court held that an individual charged for the same crime by two different sovereigns does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 17, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 11th Circuit's ruling
    • December 6, 2018: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • October 24, 2017: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • July 28, 2017: The 11th Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.

    Background

    Terance Martez Gamble was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed, arguing "that the district court erred by determining that double jeopardy did not prohibit the federal government from prosecuting Gamble for the same conduct for which he had been prosecuted and sentenced for by the State of Alabama."[4][5]

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The ruling read, in part, "Based on Supreme Court precedent, dual sovereignty allows a state government and the federal government to prosecute an individual for the same crime, when the States rely on authority originally belonging to them before admission to the Union and preserved to them by the Tenth Amendment."[4]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

    Outcome

    On June 17, 2019, the court issued a 7-2 opinion upholding the judgment of the 11th Circuit. The court held that an individual charged for the same crime by two different sovereigns does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.[2]

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.[2]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[2]

    “ We have long held that a crime under one sovereign’s laws is not 'the same offence' as a crime under the laws of another sovereign. Under this 'dual-sovereignty' doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute. [6] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ I write separately to address the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis. In my view, the Court’s typical formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III because it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law.[6] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Ginsburg and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

    In her dissent, Ginsburg wrote:[2]

    “ I would hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars 'successive prosecutions [for the

    same offense] by parts of the whole USA.' ... The notion that the Federal Government and the States are separate sovereigns overlooks a basic tenet of our federal system. The doctrine treats governments as sovereign, with state power to prosecute carried over from years predating the Constitution. See Heath v. Alabama, 474 U. S. 82, 89 (1985) (citing Lanza, 260 U. S., at 382). In the system established by the Federal Constitution, however, 'ultimate sovereignty' resides in the governed. ... Different parts of the 'WHOLE' United States should not be positioned to prosecute a defendant a second time for the same offense. I would reverse Gamble’s federal conviction. [6]

    		”

    In his dissent, Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ This 'separate sovereigns exception' to the bar against double jeopardy finds no meaningful support in the text of the Constitution, its original public meaning, structure, or history. Instead, the Constitution promises all Americans that they will never suffer double jeopardy. I would enforce that guarantee. ... The separate sovereigns exception was wrong when it was invented, and it remains wrong today.[6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    Read the oral argument transcript here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-646 Gamble v. U.S.," accessed November 2, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Gamble v. United States, decided June 17, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "QPReport 17-646 Gamble v. U.S.," accessed November 2, 2018
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 SCOTUSblog, "Gamble v. U.S.," accessed November 2, 2018
    5. ↑ Oyez, "Gamble v. United States," accessed November 13, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Gamble v. U.S. argued December 6, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gamble_v._United_States&oldid=9117237"