It’s Time to Close a Loophole in the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Rule

Update: On Dec. 6, 2018, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Gamble v. United States, which seeks to eliminate the so-called “dual sovereignty” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.  The ACLU and ACLU of Alabama co-authored an amicus brief with the Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center to support Mr. Gamble and close the unconstitutional loophole. Other amici from across the ideological spectrum, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, agree with ACLU’s position.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no one can be tried more than once for the same crime. The clause is designed to protect people from the danger of multiple prosecutions by overzealous prosecutors. Yet, since 1922, the Supreme Court has undermined this clause with an exception that allows state and federal prosecutors to bring separate charges for the same alleged crime. As a result, people can be prosecuted twice for the same offense — so long as the prosecutors are from separate “sovereigns.”   

This “dual-sovereignty” loophole should be closed. On Tuesday, the ACLU and ACLU of Alabama, alongside the Cato Institute and the Constitutional Accountability Center, filed an amicus brief in Gamble v. United States urging the Supreme Court to end the exception for good. The case involves Terance Gamble, who was convicted in 2016 by a federal court for weapons possession when he had already been tried and convicted in Alabama state court for the same exact crime. The federal conviction added years to his prison term.

For nearly a century, the Supreme Court has operated under the questionable logic that having state and federal prosecutors bring the same case against the same person for the same offense in two different jurisdictions somehow makes it permissible.

So, under the current rules, if a defendant like Gamble is found guilty in state court, federal prosecutors, whose criminal statutes generally carry far heavier sentences, can still pursue a second case and substitute their sentencing judgment for that of the state. Even worse, if a defendant is found not guilty in state court — meaning she is legally innocent — federal prosecutors can still prosecute. This is a betrayal of both the spirit and letter of the Double Jeopardy Clause, which was supposed to protect people from just such successive prosecutions.

The framers knew that to a defendant accused of a crime, it doesn’t matter who’s doing the prosecuting — only that it should not happen more than once. The Double Jeopardy Clause was derived from a British common law rule that applied to prosecutions by separate sovereigns. And developments over the last 50 years only support closing of the loophole.

First, in 1969, the Supreme Court made the Double Jeopardy Clause applicable to the states as well as the federal government. Therefore, no single state can prosecute a person twice for the same crime. Neither can the federal government. There is no reason to let them do together what they cannot do alone — prosecute a person twice for the same crime. The court has not revisited the dual-sovereignty exception since this development in 1969.

Second, with the ever-metastasizing federal criminal law — there are now over 4,500 federal crimes on the books — there is tremendous overlap with state law on everything from drug possession to tampering with an odometer. This greatly increases the threat of duplicative prosecutions for a vast and increasing amount of conduct.

Third, the use of joint state-federal task forces for investigating and prosecuting crime has been on the rise, roughly since President Richard Nixon initiated the war on drugs in the early 1970s. Under the aegis of these forces, state authorities may lose a case and then hand the file to federal prosecutors the very next day. This prosecutorial piggybacking undermines the claim that separate sovereigns occasionally need to investigate the same crime with separate interests. Often, they are simply prosecuting the same case, twice over.

It is true that the federal Justice Department has a standing policy discouraging such follow-on prosecutions. But that federal policy doesn’t stop state prosecutors from following federal cases with their own prosecutions. And in any event, we should not have to rely on the grace of federal or state prosecutors when it comes to fundamental rights. The Constitution bars double jeopardy, period.

Of course, a key question in this arena — debated vigorously in the wake of the Rodney King beating and Trayvon Martin killing — is whether elimination of the dual-sovereignty exception will hinder the ability of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to rectify state court failures to hold police officers accountable by bringing federal civil rights prosecutions for the same incidents. This question matters greatly to communities of color reeling from unaccountable police abuse. It is also one the ACLU has wrestled with in the past. But we believe the answer in most cases is no. 

State crimes like murder and assault, which law enforcement officers sometimes commit, are generally different from the federal statutes the Justice Department uses to later prosecute those officers. If the criminal laws are different, the crimes would not be considered the “same offense,” and a second prosecution would not violate double jeopardy, which bars successive prosecutions only for the “same offense.” The Justice Department would often be free to prosecute if it believes justice was not done.

Moreover, the Justice Department and private citizens alike may — and should — institute civil actions against bad state and local actors and the offices that harbor them. And public pressure and the election of reform-minded prosecutors can help ensure that state prosecutions of police brutality and prosecutorial misconduct are done, and done right, the first time, obviating the need for a second trial. 

In other words, the right decision in Gamble would likely not let Rodney King’s or Trayvon Martin’s assailants off the hook. But it would save countless others from being on the hook twice for the same offense — a recurring injustice that is an affront to marginalized communities and the Constitution alike.

View comments (46)
Read the Terms of Use

Michael Carrier

The US constitution calls for a republic in which representatives are elected for office by the people. Since we elect officials at both the state and federal level, and they can subsequently pass laws, there is no good reason to restrict OUR right to government reform by closing this "loophole." Furthermore, if a state court and prosecutors or the federal courts make a controversial decision, why would it be a good idea to simply let one be the final say? If something goes wrong at the state level, it makes perfect sense to allow the federal government to intervene legally, or vice versa. By living in the United States, we all agree to abide by all applicable laws at all levels of government. It is hard for me to understand why dual jeopardy restrictions should also apply to different sovereigns that have potentially different values and punishments. In essence, this belief of the ACLU would undermine the federalist principles enshrined in the constitution.


Will that apply with anyone Meuller prosecutes?

David Schreiner

Having kept with criminal law and procedure since 1975, I must admit that I was not aware (or forgot) that double jeopardy was derived from British common law. In my mind we Americans had double jeopardy because we didn't want a bad English practice in our own law. There are so many facets of criminal law that (starting with Nixon's appointments) are patently unfair and unjust, and that should be changed (like following common law where statutory law is silent).


This is about Trump. This is about weaponizing Trump’s pardon power . If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed, as Hatch wants, then Trump’s pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action.


I think the ACLU is not considering the abuses that removing this would cause. States could rush to protect a criminal by filing state charges then either pardoning the person or simply do a poor job of prosecuting. The reverse is also true - the Federal Government could protect their own by quickly filing charges then pardoning the offender. Right now we are teetering on the edge of a Constitutional crisis, removal of this 'loophole' would seal the fate of the Constitution and ensure that any crimes committed at the federal level by this or subsequent administrations will go utterly unpunished. it also means that states who view civil rights as a nuisance to be ignored will have free reign to trample their citizens' civil rights because the federal government won't be able to step up and prosecute when they fail to do so.

Robert P.

How would cases like Emmett Till and Manafort, if pardoned, be affected?


It's more aboutTrump pardoning all his guilty friends than Gamble


That's exactly why Trump nominated Kavanaugh for that swing vote.


This concerns me in the sense where Trump and his family can use this for his benefit in reference to the crimes he's being investigated for, if it is overturned. And, I feel, like many others, feel that's why he nominated Kavanaugh for the deciding vote to overturn it. In other words, if Trump is indicted for federal crimes, they say he can pardon himself, but can't be tried for these same crimes at the state level. Remember, nobody is above the law!!


"Offense" should not be confused with "charge". Amendment V, Bill Of Rights, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy...". Amendment VII, Bill Of Rights, " fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States...". From this we can understand "offense" as "fact(s)", or even "incident", but clearly not "charges".


Stay Informed