BREAKING: SCOTUS upholds the "separate sovereigns" doctrine of double jeopardy

[libertpaulian]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/17/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-ruling-trump-associates/3268701002/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court upheld Monday the ability of federal and state governments to prosecute defendants twice for the same crime – a form of double jeopardy that could come into play if President Donald Trump pardons former associates caught up in the Russian election-meddling scandal.

The case, which was heard in early December, had appeared to be an opportunity for challengers to block second prosecutions. But, during oral argument, it became clear that a majority of justices were wary of letting criminals go free, possibly including some of those previously sentenced.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 7-2 opinion, joined by three conservative and three liberal colleagues. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The case had gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Given SCOTUS' current makeup, it isn't all too surprising.  However, this is a MAJOR win for the NY Attorney General's Office.

[RI]

The obvious decision.

[Nyvin]

There goes Trump's last hope of not getting prosecuted once he's out of office.

[Illiniwek]

Interesting dissenters. Gotta read the opinions.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Interesting dissenters. Gotta read the opinions.

[Peanut]

Interesting dissenters. Gotta read the opinions.

[Continential]

Interesting dissenters. Gotta read the opinions.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There are probably a large number of people in jail right now, including at least 1 on death row who would have had to be completely released with convictions overturned had this ruling went the other way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure what I think of this. Either outcome would have had some pretty disturbing implications. I guess we'll see what comes out of it long term.

[SteveRogers]

I'm not sure what I think of this. Either outcome would have had some pretty disturbing implications. I guess we'll see what comes out of it long term.

This ruling just reaffirms what’s already been the case for basically our country’s entire history...

[Sestak]

Interesting dissenters. Gotta read the opinions.

Not that interesting given their backgrounds on this subject. But an anomaly overall, yes.

[T'Chenka]

This really sucks for crime drama novelists and Hollywood.

[emailking]

This really sucks for crime drama novelists and Hollywood.

I guess but those already require a health suspension of disbelief in courtroom settings. Like how the trials all take days even though the key witnesses are questioned for 2 minutes at the most.

[Person Man]

So Pence can’t pardon Trump. If Trump actually committed  a crime, I am certain he will be indicted within one year of the next election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

An awful decision.

Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy.

[Progressive Pessimist]

So Pence can’t pardon Trump. If Trump actually committed  a crime, I am certain he will be indicted within one year of the next election.

We can only hope. This is reliant on him not getting re-elected, of course.

[Karpatsky]

An awful decision.

Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy.

Different laws, though. Someone can be properly innocent of a crime in one jurisdiction and properly guilty in another with the same act.

[Xeuma]

An awful decision.

Double Jeopardy is Double Jeopardy.

What is the flaw in the reasoning here?

The dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment's text. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being "twice put in jeopardy" "for the same offence." As originally understood, an "offence" is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two "offences." Gamble attempts to show from the Clause's drafting history that Congress must have intended to bar successive prosecutions regardless of the sovereign bringing the charge. But even if conjectures about subjective goals were allowed to inform this Court's reading of the text, the Government's contrary arguments on that score would prevail.

[emailking]

Different laws, though. Someone can be properly innocent of a crime in one jurisdiction and properly guilty in another with the same act.

What is the flaw in the reasoning here?

The dual-sovereignty doctrine is not an exception to the double jeopardy right but follows from the Fifth Amendment's text. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being "twice put in jeopardy" "for the same offence." As originally understood, an "offence" is defined by a law, and each law is defined by a sovereign. Thus, where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws and two "offences." Gamble attempts to show from the Clause's drafting history that Congress must have intended to bar successive prosecutions regardless of the sovereign bringing the charge. But even if conjectures about subjective goals were allowed to inform this Court's reading of the text, the Government's contrary arguments on that score would prevail.

The existence of separate sovereigns is perhaps the problem.

I get it, we have states. It serves in some sense as a hierarchy of government. But then it also allows for somebody to be tried twice for same crime on a loophole like this.

I don't think we're so different that we need different laws regarding personal behavior based on location, with maybe a very few exceptions.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Muh federalism

[Frodo]

There goes Trump's last hope of not getting prosecuted once he's out of office.

That is the only reason why I am interested in this decision.

[Person Man]

There goes Trump's last hope of not getting prosecuted once he's out of office.

That is the only reason why I am interested in this decision.

What would be more interesting is a case that involves a behavior committed in one state where it is legal and having that same behavior be a serious or even a heinous crime in another state where the person committing the behavior  has some sort of ties to the latter state. Law school or even an undergraduate civics class says this is settled law but there could be extreme and unanticipated situations in the future.

Does anyone know what I am insinuating or is this being largely digested as a “AW is bored again” post?

Hint: maybe a little but... abor✝️ion. Georgia. Others.

[emailking]

There goes Trump's last hope of not getting prosecuted once he's out of office.

That is the only reason why I am interested in this decision.

What would be more interesting is a case that involves a behavior committed in one state where it is legal and having that same behavior be a serious or even a heinous crime in another state where the person committing the behavior  has some sort of ties to the latter state. Law school or even an undergraduate civics class says this is settled law but there could be extreme and unanticipated situations in the future.

Does anyone know what I am insinuating or is this being largely digested as a “AW is bored again” post?

Hint: maybe a little but... abor✝️ion. Georgia. Others.

Another way it could arise, though rare, is if there is dispute over which state a crime took place in. One of the things that has to be proved in a trial is that the crime took place in that jurisdiction (usually a no brainer).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

this will be used by right-wingers to target the poor and underprivliged, but sure it will get Trump and I guess that's all that's important at the end of the day...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

this will be used by right-wingers to target the poor and underprivliged, but sure it will get Trump and I guess that's all that's important at the end of the day...

Poor and underprivileged people aren't the ones who get charged with federal crimes. At least not the sort of crimes this usually applies to.