Posted by Amy Howe on December 6, 2018 2:20
When Terence Gamble was dragged to keep a faulty headlight in Alabama three years ago in the Alabama, then perhaps he did not think the prosecutor would remove this federal case. And he certainly did not imagine that his case would create national titles – not so much for his advantage, but the reason for the win for the Gamble was in 2016 for potential prosecutors arising from the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in possible Russian intervention. Could Elections Both of these things happened, but after about 80 minutes of oral reasoning this morning, Gamble was unlikely to win on his argument that federal charges against him violated the double threat section of the constitution, which in turn led to the state prosecutors' Will protect the capacity, bring charges against the defendant in the Müller investigation, even if he has been arrested by President Donald Trump for any federal charge brought against him Receive fees.
When the police officer stopped the gambal, then searched the car of a gambal, get him marijuana, a digital scale and two handgun bags. Gamble was accused of violating state drug laws, but under state and federal laws, he was also accused of involvement in the possession of a gun. After a year's sentence in the state prison, Gamble argued that the prosecution of federal gun charges would violate the constitution of the double threat of the constitution, which guarantees that anyone for any crime "in danger Should be put ". The lower courts rejected the claim, which is known as the "separate sovereign" theory – depends on the idea that the decisions of the Supreme Court have long been considered, the state and federal governments have two distinct – are different sovereigns and therefore both can be prosecuted for any conduct without violating the double threat section.
Gamble then went to the Supreme Court, who agreed to weigh at the beginning of this year. The decision to give a review means that there were at least four votes to take up this matter, but after today's logic it is difficult to see how Gamble can get five votes to eliminate different sovereign principles. . Arguing for the gambal, lawyer Louis Chatten started the court by saying that different sovereign theories are incompatible with the text and the original meaning of the double dangerous section, and they have described it as "the mountain of positive evidence" That, in a few years before the draft of the American Constitution, the courts in England would not have been allowed to continue prosecution.
Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical about the fact that Chaitanya is the leading authority for his authority that the courts in England did not allow continuous litigation on prosecutors in England after the continuous litigation. Roberts suggested that it would be "amazing", wanting to adopt the same rules for the new American republic as it would be infiltrating a significant sovereignty of the country.
Even more widely, the other judges were concerned that adopting Gamble's regime would prevent the federal government from prosecuting the defendants who hurt America's citizens. Justice Samuel Elito asked Chaitan about a fictional case where terrorists tried to kill American tourists in foreign tourists but they were acquitted there. Does this mean Elioto asked, that the terrorists can be sued in the United States for murder?
Chaitan told Elito that in such a case, the American court will have to decide whether to recognize the foreign court or not, but he assured Elio that such investigation is not necessary in the case of the gambal, in which the courts will be included in Alabama. Justice Brett Kavanagh pushed back, however, stating to Chaitan that the Supreme Court needs to consider this question as the situation of the gambler will extend to foreign prosecutors and obstruct national security efforts.
Justice Elena Kagan also worried that Gamble is asking the court to write opinion on the basis of Framer's basic understanding of the double threat section. If the original understanding shows how England should have dealt with the foreign lawsuit, then it suggested that the court's opinion will apply to the foreign lawsuit.
Justice Stephen Breair expressed a concerned concern: It is likely that the ban on continuous litigation will harm the federal government's federal civil rights and the ability of the Indian tribes to prosecute domestic violence. On the contrary, he asked Chaitan, is it really the case that as a practical matter, people are prosecuted for the same thing twice?
Some judges also raised voices about engaging in the principles, while pointing out the principles – known as the adherence to the pre-decision – to follow the pre-decision. Kagan was the first person to raise this issue, considering that different sovereign principles are a "170-year rule" for which 30 judges have voted. Strong decision, he stressed, is under the principle of "gentleness"; We do not want to eliminate the earlier decisions or rules because we think we can improve it.
Justice Neil Gorsch later reflected on Kagan's question about nervousness, asked Chaitanya to state that "what errors have been made in this court over the last few years," it should eliminate different sovereign principles. . "Why should we care about this?"
But later, Gorsuk was appointed by Justice Ruth Badr Ginsberg (who had earlier suggested that the Supreme Court should reconsider different sovereign principles) and against the government, as both the judges pointed to the Assistant Eric Fagin of the American Solicitor General , Who argued on behalf of the United States with questions about federalism – the power between the federal and state governments The concept of dividing. I can not think of another case, Gorsch said, in which the use of unionists would be used by the government to justify intrusion rather than protecting people against infiltration of people's lives (here, in the possibility of double prosecution) is.
Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask any questions, but he joined Ginsberg's opinion for the "fresh examination" of different sovereign principles, so that Gamble has at least three votes in his favor. Finding two more votes to eliminate the theory, however, seems like a longer order. Expect some time next year.
This post was originally published How are you on the court.
Logic analysis: abundance appears ready to maintain "different sovereign" theory,
SCOTUSblog (December 6, 2018, 2:20 pm),