Case No. 17-646 | 11th Cir.
Preview by Samuel E. Meredith, Senior Online Editor
Because he had a prior felony conviction, Terance Gamble was arrested in 2015 when a police officer found a gun in his car. Gamble was charged for “being a felon in possession of a firearm,” first by the state and then by federal authorities. Brief for Petitioner at 2, Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (U.S. filed Sept. 4, 2018). Gamble challenged the federal charges when they were filed, arguing that they violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The district court rejected Gamble’s request to have the charges dropped, citing the “separate-sovereigns exception.” Id. at 3; see also Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 194–96 (1959). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Now, the Court must decide whether the separate-sovereigns exception should be discarded.
Gamble contends that “the . . . exception is incompatible with the text, original meaning, and purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Brief for Petitioner at 4, Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (U.S. filed Sept. 4, 2018). To support this conclusion, Gamble points to “[a] long line of English cases, dating to at least 1662,” and “[e]arly American sources,” which, according to Gamble, demonstrate that “[t]he framers of the Bill of Rights understood the Double Jeopardy Clause to incorporate English common law protections against successive prosecutions . . . by separate sovereigns.” Id. at 4–5.
The government, on the other hand, avers that Gamble’s interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause “would allow a foreign sovereign . . . to preclude U.S. prosecutions for crimes against Americans.” Brief for the United States at 7, Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (U.S. filed Oct. 25, 2018). Further, the government argues that deviating from the Court’s traditional interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause would be unwise because it would “saddle courts with the confounding task of comparing different sovereigns’ laws,” and foster uncertainty in the criminal justice system. Id. at 8.