Gamble v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued December 6, 2018 Decided June 17, 2019 | |
Full case name | Terance Martez Gamble, Petitioner v. United States |
Docket no. | 17-646 |
Citations | 587 U.S. ___ (more) 139 S. Ct. 1960; 204 L. Ed. 2d 322 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | United States v. Gamble, 694 F. App'x 750 (11th Cir. 2017); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 2707 (2018). |
Questions presented | |
Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. | |
Holding | |
The court declined to overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine, concluding that historical precedent has held that it is a part of the Fifth Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Dissent | Ginsburg |
Dissent | Gorsuch |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V |
Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns". Terance Martez Gamble was prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon. His argument that doing so was double jeopardy was found unpersuasive due to the exception. In June 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision 7–2, with the majority opinion stating that there was not sufficient cause for overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine.[1]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search