WASHINGTON (CN) - In a case said to be watched closely by convicted Trump ally Paul Manafort, the Supreme Court justices appeared unlikely Thursday to overturn precedent that allows a person to face state and federal prosecution over the same criminal conduct.
"Part of what stare decisis is, is a kind of doctrine of humility where we say we are really uncomfortable throwing over 170-year-old rules that 30 justices have approved just because we think we can kind of do it better,” Justice Elena Kagan said at oral arguments this morning.
Asking the court to do just that is Terance Gamble, who in 2008 was convicted of second-degree robbery in Alabama. He was later convicted of two domestic-violence charges as well.
In 2015, Gamble again ran into trouble with the law when a police officer smelled marijuana coming from his car after pulled him over for a missing headlight. After searching the car, the officer discovered drugs and a handgun.
The state brought charges against Gamble because his previous convictions barred him from possessing a gun. He eventually received a one-year sentence.
While the state charges were pending, however, the federal government stepped in with federal charges for being a felon in possession of a gun. Just like his state case, the federal charges were based on the traffic stop.
Gamble challenged his federal prosecution under the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, but the court rejected his argument and pointed what is known as the separate sovereigns exception, which allows the federal government to bring charges against someone who already faced a state prosecution for the same incident.
Gamble entered a conditional guilty plea that preserved his ability to appeal the court's decision, but that appeal gave him no relief, as the 11th Circuit ruled multiple Supreme Court cases have upheld the separate sovereigns exception.
Gamble will now be in prison until February 2020, three years longer than if the federal government had never gotten involved in the case.
Jones Day attorney Louis Chaiten, who argued for Gamble, told the justices the double-jeopardy clause is straightforward and without any exceptions, despite what the court has said in the past. Chaiten also said the realities that first led the court to uphold the separate sovereigns exception have changed, making it appropriate for the justices to reconsider the doctrine.
In addition, Chaiten reminded the justices they have not taken a look at the separate sovereigns exception since holding the double-jeopardy clause applies to the states.
"It is important because we currently have a rule that allows the federal government to come in and decide they don't like the way a state prosecuted someone or the result of the prosecution or the sentence they got and re-prosecute them," Chaiten said. "It's precisely what happened in this case. There's every reason to believe it happens with some regularity and the court can put an end to it."