Gamble v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court kept the separate-sovereigns rule in place, so the federal prosecution could follow Alabama's prosecution for the same conduct.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · June 17, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The case asked whether the federal government could prosecute Terance Gamble for being a felon in possession of a firearm after Alabama had already prosecuted him for the same conduct.
- Who it affects
- The ruling lets state and federal prosecutors bring separate cases based on the same conduct because the governments are treated as separate sovereigns. It leaves Gamble's federal prosecution in place.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court held that this second prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.
The case tested whether the constitutional protection against being tried twice applies when state and federal governments prosecute the same conduct.
Question presented
Whether the Court should overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
What the Court decided
Holding
This Court declines to overturn the longstanding dualsovereignty doctrine. 750, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result.”
What's next
The lower-court judgment remains in force. Lower courts and prosecutors will continue applying the separate-sovereigns rule in similar state-federal cases.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Gamble v. United States decide?
- The Court upheld the lower court's ruling and kept the separate-sovereigns rule, allowing state and federal prosecutions for the same conduct.
- What did Gamble argue about the federal prosecution?
- Alabama had already prosecuted him for the same conduct, so he argued the federal case violated the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy.
- How did the separate-sovereigns rule affect Gamble's case?
- It treated Alabama and the federal government as separate sovereigns, so the federal prosecution was not barred by double jeopardy.
- What happens next in Gamble v. United States?
- The lower-court judgment remains in force, and lower courts will apply the rule in similar state-federal prosecutions.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.