Gamble v. United States
Terance Martez Gamble v. United States was granted certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2018. The oral arguments are scheduled for December 5, 2018. In 2008 Gamble was convicted for 2nd degree robbery in Mobile County, Alabama. The State of Alabama and the United States considers robbery a felony, making Gamble a convicted felon. On November 29, 2015, Gamble was driving in Mobile County when he was pulled over for a broken taillight. The officer immediately smelled marijuana and subsequently searched Gamble’s vehicle. A 9 millimeter handgun and two bags of marijuana were found during the search. §13A-11-72 of Alabama State Law prohibits felons from owning a pistol (a gun with barrel of less than 12 inches in length) and §13A-12-213 prohibits possession of marijuana in the first degree. Gamble was first convicted by the State of Alabama and was sentenced to one year in prison (which he completed on May 14, 2017). However, during Alabama’s prosecution, the federal government also convicted Gamble under 18 USC § 922(g) & (n) which prohibits felons from owning a firearm. The federal government openly stated that they were charging Gamble for the same incident that the State of Alabama already was. Thereafter, he was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama where he motioned for dismissal of his federal conviction based on the 5th Amendment’s double jeopardy clause. The double jeopardy clause states that one cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the district court denied Gamble’s motion using the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause as justification. The “separate sovereigns” exception was solidified in 1922 in United States v. Lanza when Chief Justice Taft wrote for the majority stating, “We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject-matter within the same territory…It follows than an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against peace and dignity of both and may be punished by each.” The defendant then agreed to a conditional guilty plea on the basis of the “separate sovereigns” exception. He received a 46 month sentence. Gamble appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals where the district court’s decision was affirmed. Gamble then appealed to United States Supreme Court. The issue that the Supreme Court will address is does the “separate sovereigns” exception pertaining to successive convictions for the same offense violate the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment? It is crucial to recognize that Gamble acknowledges that the “separate sovereign” exception exists and he is merely asking the court to reinterpret its constitutionality.
Before an adequate prediction can be made, the extensive precedent involving two sovereignties separately prosecuting a party for the same offense must be acknowledged. In Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. 1 (1820) the Supreme Court allowed the federal and state government to punish individuals for avoiding the militia. In Fox v. Ohio 46 U.S. 410 (1849) the Supreme Court hinted for the first time that a state and federal government could separately prosecute for the same offense. In Moore v. Illinois 359 U.S. 197 (1852) the Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy is inapplicable when an individual has been punished separately by a state and federal government when a law from each has been violated. United States v. Lanza then occurred. Proceeding the Lanza decision, Bartkus v. Illinois 359 U.S. 121 (1959) occurred which determined that subsequent, separate prosecutions by a state and federal government were constitutional under the 14th Amendment, except if the state and federal officials were exchanging evidence to assist in their respective cases. In the majority opinion, the court even stated that the legality of such successive prosecutions was “a firmly established principle.” In Abbate v. United States 359 U.S. 187 the Supreme Court affirmed that a subsequent federal prosecution following a state’s prosecution does not violate the 5th Amendment. In United States v. Wheeler 435 U.S. 313 (1978) the Supreme Court allowed separate prosecutions from the federal government and an Indian tribe. In Heath v. Alabama 474 U.S. 82 (1985) the Supreme Court upheld the legality of two states separately prosecuting for the same offense. Lastly, in Rinaldi v. United States 434 U.S. 22,28 (1977) the court held that the “separate sovereigns” exception must remain constitutional because if a sovereign with a smaller interest were to prosecute the defendant first, then a sovereign with a potentially greater interest (specifically referring to criminal justice in this case) would be unable to take action. There is clearly extensive precedent showcasing that in the past, the Supreme Court has ruled utilizing what they believed to be a completely constitutional exception to the 5th Amendment. Along with this, if the Supreme Court rules to overturn the “separate sovereigns” exception in Gamble v. United States, they will be overlooking stare decisis.
This idea of the “separate sovereigns” exception was not under speculation until 39 years after Rinaldi v. United States in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle 579 U.S.__(2016). Mr. Sanchez Valle was an individual prosecuted by both Puerto Rico and the United States for trafficking illegal weapons, thus affecting interstate commerce. Justice Kagan wrote for the majority (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) claiming that the double jeopardy clause does not allow both Puerto Rico and the United States to each prosecute for the same incident because Puerto Rico derives much of its power from the United States (the court views them as stemming from the same sovereignty). Their rationale was made based on standards solely applicable to Puerto Rico. Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor also joined in a dissent for reasons irrelevant to Gamble v. United States. Justice Ginsburg wrote a separate and relevant concurring opinion that Justice Thomas joined, showcasing that the question of the “separate sovereigns” exception is most certainly not based on ideology. This concurring opinion stated that the Court should reexamine the legality of multiple prosecutions for the same incident. She further explained that while one trial is completely justified, multiple prosecutions could abuse “human dignity”, along with the 5th Amendment. This opinion is why law professors across the nation speculate that Gamble v. United States was granted certiorari in the first place.
For these reasons, I firmly believe that Justice Ginsburg will rule in favor of Mr. Gamble. In the Sanchez Valle concurring opinion, she references Green v. United States 355 U.S. 184 (1957) when stating, “Current ‘separate sovereigns’ doctrine hardly serves that objective [from Green v. US].” Green v. United States was an “outlier” decision in comparison to other double jeopardy clause precedent because it determined that the clause’s purpose was to protect individuals from successive prosecutions for the same incident. By voicing concern about the disregard of Green’s objective, Justice Ginsburg is hinting at her support for the decision. Along with this, Justice Ginsburg is a known believer in a “living Constitution” meaning she believes that the Constitution may change interpretations depending on the context of the time period. Mr. Gamble’s attorney, Louis A. Chaiten, stated in the writ of certiorari that criminal law has greatly evolved since United Stated v. Lanza, the case establishing the “separate sovereigns” exception. In current times, federal criminal law now includes “every major state crime,” thus increasing the risk of officials from both respective sovereignties to work together and undermine that double jeopardy clause’s purpose. Considering her bold initiative to reevaluate the exception, along with her comfortability with conforming the law to today’s issues, Justice Ginsburg will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is unconstitutional and violates the double jeopardy clause.
Going along with Justice Ginsburg, I believe that Justice Thomas will also rule in favor of Mr. Gamble. By joining Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion for Sanchez Valle, he has also voiced concern about the disregard of Green’s objective, thus hinting at his support for the decision. Along with this, Justice Thomas is a known “originalist” meaning that he aims to uphold the intent of the framers when they wrote the Constitution. Mr. Gamble’s attorney, Louis A. Chaiten, stated in the writ of certiorari that the “separate sovereigns” exception violates the framers’ original intent when drafting the 5th Amendment. The framers created the 5th Amendment by stemming ideas from the English common law, including, “this universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life, more than once, for the same offence,” which prevented a defendant from experiencing successive prosecutions. Mr. Chaiten further explained that the double jeopardy clause does not specify whether the state and federal governments qualify as separate sovereignties or not, meaning that the 5th Amendment was intended to protect all individuals no matter the source of such prosecutions. Lastly, the Framers made their views of federalism quite apparent in The Federalist Papers: No. 5 when they stated, “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” However, Mr. Chaiten makes it abundantly clear in the writ of certiorari that allowing the state and federal government to separately prosecute violates the framers’ intentions by allowing the sovereignties to indirectly join their power and prosecute to a greater extent than they would be capable of accomplishing separately. Considering his join in Justice Ginsburg’s call for reexamination, and the vast evidence that the framer’s intention is not being upheld, Justice Thomas will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is unconstitutional and violates the double jeopardy clause.
Going along with their rulings, I also predict that Justice Sotomayor will rule in favor of Mr. Gamble. It is evident that Mr. Gamble has plenty of precedent contradicting his claim, however, it is unreasonable to assume that all justices will rule according to stare decisis. In Alleyne v. United States 570 U.S.__(2013), Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent which stated, “…stare decisis does not compel adherence to a decision whose ‘underpinnings’ have been ‘eroded’ by subsequent developments of constitutional law.” In the writ of certiorari, Mr. Chaiten quite literally stated, “In 1969, however, the Court vaporized the doctrinal underpinnings of the separate-sovereigns exception when it incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the States.” His reference to 1969 is the year that the Supreme Court ruled on Benton v. Maryland 395 U.S. 784 (1969) which applied the double jeopardy clause to the states under the 14th Amendment. A case decided twelve years later, United States v. Grimes 641 F.2d 96 (1981) upholds Mr. Chaiten’s statement. This United States Court of Appeals case stated that when the Supreme Court decided on Benton v. Maryland, the purpose of the “separate sovereigns” exception became useless. In other words, it was pointless to enforce the constitutional provision equally against the state and federal government (neither may conduct two trials for the same offense), yet “allow the parallel actions” of each sovereignty who will ultimately accomplish what was originally outlawed. Considering Justice Sotomayor’s allowance for a ruling against stare decisis if the “underpinnings” of principal have eroded, and the vast evidence that the “separate sovereigns” exceptions’ has, I believe that she will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is unconstitutional and violates the double jeopardy clause.
Along with this, I firmly believe that Justice Gorsuch will rule in favor of Mr. Gamble. In 2005 in an article written by himself, “Liberals N’ Lawsuits,” Justice Gorsuch stated that the courtroom should only be utilized for extraordinary cases. In other words, an “ordinary violation” of the Constitution should be overlooked. While this was, and still remains, a highly disputed viewpoint, it would be reasonable for Justice Gorsuch to vote in favor of the defendant. Mr. Chaiten stated in the writ of certiorari that Gamble v. United States possesses no special circumstance or oddity. It is an ordinary case about an individual who happened to be placed under scrutiny twice. Therefore, if Justice Gorsuch wanted to fully prevent an ordinary case of this nature from reaching the Supreme Court again, he will vote in favor of Mr. Gamble (likely allowing only one prosecution collectively from the government). For these reasons, I believe that he will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is unconstitutional and violates the double jeopardy clause.
Lastly, I predict that Justice Kavanaugh will rule in favor of Mr. Gamble. While Justice Kavanaugh is the newest member of the Supreme Court, he is fairly outspoken regarding his views of executive authority. According to National Public Radio, he desires the president to have “broad authority and discretion” and would certainly vote to expand the magnitude of the presidential pardon. Voting for Mr. Gamble will accomplish exactly that. If Mr. Gamble wins his case, and the “separate sovereigns” clause is deemed unconstitutional, a presidential pardon from the federal government could be used as a defense to any prosecution from the state government, thus barring the individual from prosecution altogether. The power of the presidential pardon would drastically increase. Considering his interest in expanding executive power, I believe that Justice Kavanaugh will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is unconstitutional and violates the double jeopardy clause.
On the contrary, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts will rule in favor of the United States. In his confirmation hearing to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005, Justice Roberts stated that he exercises judicial restraint, therefore he believes in following precedent (stare decisis) rather than creating new interpretations (exercising judicial activism). Along with this, he wishes to promote judicial minimalism. With the extensive precedent contradicting Mr. Gamble’s claim, voting in favor of the defendant would not yield a minimalist effect, but rather a large shift in power towards the president that would allow him to, in essence, end any prosecution(s) from any government that he views unfair. Considering his evident views of judicial restraint, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is constitutional and does not violate the double jeopardy clause.
Going along with Chief Justice Roberts, I believe that Justice Breyer will also rule in favor of the United States. When Neal v. United States 516 U.S. 286 (1996) was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer was one of nine justices that decided stare decisis stands in absence of “statutory changes” that may change the precedent’s interpretation. By definition, statutory laws typically “follow the usual process of legislation,” meaning for the United States, a statutory change would originate in Congress. In the case of Neal v. United States, 21 U.S.C. 841 was directly relevant to the case, thus allowing the code to be followed over the relevant and contradicting precedent. In terms of Gamble v. United States, Congress has not implemented a statutory change directly outlawing successive prosecutions by separate sovereignties for the same incident, meaning that stare decisis must be followed. Considering Justice Breyer’s decision in Neal v. United States, and the absence of a relevant statutory change, I believe that he will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is constitutional and does not violate the double jeopardy clause.
I also believe that Justice Kagan and Justice Alito will rule in favor of the United States. First and foremost, Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion for Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle. In her opinion, she voiced no concern regarding the “separate sovereigns” exception’s applicability to the state and federal government. One may reasonably infer that if Justice Kagan were worried about such decision affecting successive prosecutions by both governments, she would have clearly stated a distinction in the opinion or joined in Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion. The same goes for Justice Alito considering his join in Justice Kagan’s opinion. Along with this, according to National Public Radio, Justice Kagan is a known believer in judicial restraint. According to The University of Chicago, The Law School, Justice Alito is also a known believer in judicial restraint. This meaning that both justices rule according to the concept of stare decisis. Considering the vast precedent upholding the United States’ arguments, it would be unsurprising for Justice Kagan and Justice Alito to rule in accordance with such decisions. Thus, due to Justice Kagan’s Sanchez Valle opinion, Justice Alito’s failure to join in Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, and their evident practice of judicial restraint, I believe that both justices will rule that the “separate sovereigns” exception is constitutional and does not violate the double jeopardy clause.
These opinions result in a 5-4 majority in favor of Mr. Gamble. This decision to overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception of the 5th Amendment will greatly affect the people of the United States, starting with increased power and scope of the presidential pardon. Allowing the 5th Amendment to stand on its own without exception means that an individual may not be tried twice, no matter the origin of the prosecution. Therefore, if the president exercises his power to pardon (found in Article II of the Constitution) for convictions against the United States, the state governments’ ability to separately prosecute the pardoned individual will be forbidden. The individual will remain untouched by the legal system in all regards to the same incident. Unfortunately, this will allow the president to pardon anyone he chooses, including ethical and unethical individuals. This is extremely relevant in the Trump administration today. Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign manager, has recently been convicted of tax fraud, bank fraud, and hiding foreign bank accounts. Prior to Gamble v. United States, precedent would have allowed the state government to separately prosecute Mr. Manafort in the instance that President Trump chooses to pardon him. In the past, this has allowed for justice to be served to those acting unethically and illegally. However, overturning the “separate sovereigns” exception will allow President Trump to pardon Mr. Manafort (along with any of his fellow unethical colleagues), thus ending potential future prosecutions. The people assisting our President can now be held to a standard above the law without any accountability. For some Americans, this is a frightening realization.
On a much brighter note, overturning the “separate sovereigns” exception will prevent government officials from working together to separately prosecute defendants for prolonged periods of time. As mentioned earlier, Gamble v. United States is not an extraordinary case. There is an unspeakable number of defendants who have been put under scrutiny successively and unconstitutionally. Allowing one sole prosecution for a single instance will allow justice to be served, yet the “affronting of human dignity” to be avoided. While the court will be going against stare decisis in this decision for Mr. Gamble, one may hope that this case will be the final and absolute judgement regarding the “separate sovereigns” exception that Justice Ginsburg had hoped for.