USA TODAY International Edition
Ruling may stunt Trump pardons
Ruling upholds second prosecution over same crime
Second prosecution for same crime could come into play for associates in Russia investigation
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.
It became clear in the case, which was heard in early December, that 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 gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
If former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was pardoned, he still could face state prosecutions for the same crimes under the court’s precedents. That rule applies because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.
Alito defended the court’s ruling on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, historical evidence and “170 years of precedent.” He noted that federal and state governments often have overlapping powers that allow for two layers of regulation. Examples include taxation and rules regarding gambling, alcohol and marijuana, he said.
Ginsburg disagreed. “Different parts of the ‘WHOLE’ United States should not be positioned to prosecute a defendant a second time for the same offense,” she said.
Gorsuch said, “A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result.”
The Justice Department and a coalition of 36 states defended the status quo, which has led to successful second prosecutions after acquittals or hung juries. It enabled Mississippi to convict Edgar Ray Killen of murdering three civil rights workers in 1964 after federal charges didn’t stick. It helped the federal government convict two Los Angeles police officers for the notorious 1991 beating of Rodney King after a county jury acquitted four officers of nearly all charges. And it helped federal officials win a guilty plea from a South Carolina police officer for the shooting death in 2015 of Walter Scott, an unarmed black man, after a state jury deadlocked.
Two years ago, the court ruled 6-2 that Puerto Rico could not prosecute a suspect after his federal conviction because the territory, unlike states, derived its power from the United States. At the time, Ginsburg and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the court consider a similar approach for all levels of government.
December’s case was brought on behalf of Terance Gamble, who received a one-year prison sentence in Alabama but nearly four years in federal court for the same firearms offense in 2015. Two lower courts upheld the sentences, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Although the terms are running concurrently, Gamble won’t be released until next year. Had the federal government been barred from a second prosecution, he would be free.
The high court is racing to complete its 2018 term next week, and 20 decisions are still to come. Monday, the justices also:
Gave Democrats a major victory over Republicans in Virginia by spurning the GOP’s defense of election maps drawn with racial and partisan overtones. The court said the GOP-controlled House of Delegates lacked the authority to challenge a federal district court decision striking down the maps after the state’s Democratic attorney general refused to do so.
The decision was written by Ginsburg, who was joined by two conservative and two liberal colleagues. Alito dissented and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh.
Ruled that industry groups and the Trump administration cannot force Virginia to open the nation’s largest deposit of uranium to mining. The case, pending for more than seven months, deeply divided the justices between those favoring states’ rights and those arguing that the federal government retains authority over the nuclear industry.
Three conservatives and three liberals combined in the 6-3 ruling, for which Gorsuch wrote the main opinion. Roberts, Breyer and Alito dissented.
Declined to decide whether an Oregon baker can refuse on religious grounds to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. The case would have given the court’s conservative majority the chance to expand upon its narrow ruling in 2018 in favor of a Colorado baker.
The new case involves Sweetcakes by Melissa, a custom cake business operated by Melissa and Aaron Klein outside Portland, Oregon. They were fined $135,000 for refusing to serve Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, who sought a wedding cake for their nuptials. As a result, the Kleins closed shop.
The justices sent the case back to a lower court to take its 2018 ruling into consideration. The delay saved the Kleins from the six-figure fine for now.
“A free society does not allow its government to try the same individual for the same crime until it’s happy with the result.”
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting opinion