Criminal Justice

Gamble v. United States

In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than once, bars a federal prosecution for a criminal offense when the defendant has already been prosecuted for the same offense in state court.

Case Summary

In 2015, a police officer in Mobile, Alabama pulled Terance Martez Gamble over for a broken tail light on his car. During the stop, the officer discovered both a gun and marijuana paraphernalia in Gamble’s car. Gamble, who had been convicted of second-degree felony robbery seven years earlier, was barred from owning a firearm. The state of Alabama prosecuted Gamble for illegal possession of a firearm, and he served one year in prison. Subsequently, the federal government also charged Gamble with illegal possession of a firearm in relation to the same 2015 incident.

Gamble asked the U.S. District Court to dismiss his federal indictment on the ground that it violated his Fifth Amendment protection from Double Jeopardy. The District Court ruled that the dual-sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, which permits a second prosecution for the same offense by a different “sovereign,” permitted the federal case to proceed. Gamble appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and that court affirmed the lower court’s decision. Gamble, who is now serving time in federal prison, asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its past decisions allowing successive prosecutions for the same offense by different sovereigns (i.e., the “dual-sovereignty doctrine”).  CAC, along with the Cato Institute, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Gamble, urging the Supreme Court to grant review, and the Court agreed to hear Gamble’s case.

CAC, the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the merits of the case, asking the Supreme Court to overrule the dual-sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.  As we explain, that exception is inconsistent with the text, history, and purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause, as well as our constitutional structure more broadly.  The Framers viewed the Double Jeopardy Clause as a fundamental protection of individual liberty and an important safeguard against government harassment and overreach.  The dual-sovereignty exception, by allowing two governments to do together what neither could do alone, undermines the fundamental protection of individual liberty that the Double Jeopardy Clause was adopted to achieve.

Moreover, as we also explain, two changes in the legal backdrop further support elimination of the dual-sovereignty exception.  First, the dual-sovereignty exception was first adopted against the backdrop of a legal regime in which the Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply to the states. Whatever validity the doctrine may have had then, it has been completely undermined by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court that recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement the personal rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, including the Double Jeopardy Clause.  Second, concerns about government overreach and harassment are particularly acute today because the scope of federal criminal law is far more expansive than it was when the dual-sovereignty exception was last considered, and there is now also significant federal-state cooperation in criminal law enforcement.

The Court will hear oral argument in the case later this year.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
July 16, 2018

Keeping Cops’ Hands Out of Your Pockets

The American Conservative
Finally, a case that might put a real crimp into civil asset forfeiture abuse.
Criminal Justice
June 22, 2018

RELEASE: Victory for the Fourth Amendment in Carpenter

“While the Framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have anticipated cell-phone technology, they deliberately...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Timbs v. Indiana

In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court is considering whether state governments must comply with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “excessive fines.”
Criminal Justice
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Alasaad v. Nielsen

In Alasaad v. Nielsen, the district court for the District of Massachusetts is considering whether the First and Fourth Amendments permit law enforcement officers—without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of illegal activity—to...
Criminal Justice
November 30, 2017

Where Are We with Location Privacy? Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument in Carpenter v. United States

Host: American Bar Association
The privacy of cell phone location information and free speech will be the focus of...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Alan Jay Butler, Dan Schweitzer, Jake Laperruque
Criminal Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Walker v. City of Calhoun

In Walker v. City of Calhoun, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the City’s use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the Equal Protection and...