What if no "dual sovereignty" exception to double jeopady

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that it is not a violation of the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) for the state and federal governments to proescute an individual for the same conduct. The rationale is that the states and the federal government are separate sovereigns; each has interests to uphold that they cannot rely on the other to uphold. Not all justices, however, have accepted this. See the dissent by Justice Black, joined by Warren and Douglas in *Bartkus v. Illinois.* https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/359/121.html More recently, in 2019 in *Gamble v. Unite States* bothJustices Ginsberg and Gorsuch (the latter in one of his occasional libertarian moods) objected to the doctrine. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-646_d18e.pdf

Suppose the dissenters had prevailed? The most celebrated--though hardly the sole-- use of the "dual sovereignty" doctirne has been to prosecute on federal civil rights charges police officers who have been fouund not guilty or received light sentences in state homicide trials.

(I should note that even calling the doctrine an "exception" to double jropardy is controversial. Justice Alito in *Gamble* argued that "Although the dual-sovereignty rule is often dubbed an “exception” to the double jeopardy right, it is not an exception at all. On the contrary, it follows from the text that defines that right in the first place. “[T]he language of the Clause . . . protects individuals from being twice put in jeopardy ‘for the same offence,’ not for the same conduct or actions,”")
 
Last edited:

dcharleos

Donor
Oooh, a nice legal PoD.

The most celebrated--though hardly the sole-- use of the "dual sovereignty" doctirne has been to prosecute on federal civil rights charges police officers who have been fouund not guilty or recieved light sentences in state homicide trials.

The thing with legal PoDs is, it's really tough to decide how they change things without getting into the nitty gritty of cases.

But, just going with the example of the civil rights charges, I would imagine that without the courts as an outlet--just think about Rodney King and the riots--that this might lead to more tensions between the police and those they police. Which can of course, lead to reform or retrenchment, depending on how you want to structure the TL.

Obviously, qualified immunity is a different legal doctrine, but I do wonder whether SCOTUS would have upheld such robust civil protections for officers without the dual sovreignity loophole. That alone might spur police--who are not as protected from civil liability as OTL--to adopt a less confrontational, militaristic style in their interactions with the public.
 
It really depends on how much state and federal governments are willing to play with the courts.
The Civil Rights era will be rough, considering what Southern states are willing to let off and that the Feds will have no recourse.

I can also see some political assassinations getting a wink and nod, if the state can bring you up on murder charges and find you not guilty before the Feds can do anything.
Or the other way around. If a pardon counts it could get worse, then a President would have lots of potential to get away with stuff.
 
Last edited:
. . . The Civil Rights era will be rough, considering what Southern states are willing to let off and that the Feds will have no recourse. . .
There might have been a few convictions for killings in the 1960s, but I really think that the (?) handful of federal trials were years after the fact.
 
Better civil liberties than OTL with the feds having less ability to railroad people. US less of a police state.
The states have proven themselves quite as capable of oppressing people as the federal government, and are certainly more responsible for any sense of the U.S. being a 'police state' than the federal government is. Moreover, as noted in the OP this ability has been used to punish state officials who are responsible for oppression, and as noted by Pesterfield this opens up a gigantic land mine with states or the federal government being able to effectively legalize vigilante and extralegal violence through executive action or rigged courts with no recourse to other levels of government. Given that the usual use of such violence in U.S. history has, again, been to oppress people, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that eliminating "dual sovereignty" would actually result in "better civil liberties" than IOTL, or make the U.S. "less of a police state".
 
Top