SCOTUS is reconsidering a 170-year precedent on double jeopardy

The Constitution's double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment protects you from being prosecuted for the same crime twice. But what if the prosecutions are done by different levels of government?

Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has permitted double prosecutions for the same crime if one is done by the federal government and another by a state. But the court will hear arguments Thursday in Gamble v. United States, a case which could overturn that precedent.

The case concerns an Alabama man named Terance Gamble who was convicted in both state and federal courts for the same gun possession crime. His lawyers argue this is a violation of his right to protection against double jeopardy, and SCOTUS justices as ideologically diverse as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas are expected to agree.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

"The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct," Ginsburg argued two years ago. "Current 'separate sovereigns' doctrine hardly serves that objective."

Though the Trump administration pushed the Supreme Court to leave the precedent intact, its decision could be significant to the fate of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. The state of New York has expressed interest in prosecuting him for tax offenses should President Trump pardon his federal tax fraud conviction. If the ruling goes Gamble's way, Manafort could be shielded from another trial.