•  
  •  
 

NSU Undergraduate Law Journal

Abstract

This paper critically examines the United States Supreme Court’s long-standing endorsement of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, which permits successive prosecutions by both state and federal governments for the same underlying conduct. Rooted in dicta from Moore v. Illinois and formally adopted in United States v. Lanza, the doctrine, in the author’s opinion, has repeatedly undermined the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Despite the incorporation of this clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Benton v. Maryland, the Court has maintained the doctrine on grounds of judicial practicality and sovereign independence.

Through an in-depth review of precedent-setting cases—Bartkus v. Illinois, United States v. Wheeler, Heath v. Alabama, and most recently Gamble v. United States—the paper argues how this doctrine enables prosecutorial overreach, disproportionately affects marginalized communities, and erodes constitutional protections. The author’s analysis emphasizes that the doctrine lacks constitutional or statutory foundation, contradicts the Framers’ original intent, and offers minimal empirical benefits. Instead, it facilitates unfair trial outcomes, burdens defendants with duplicative prosecutions, and subverts jury authority.

The paper concludes by arguing for the full abandonment of the doctrine or, at minimum, the establishment of strict limits on its application, particularly in civil rights contexts. As recent political developments raise concerns over executive overreach, the continued application of the doctrine poses a tangible threat to individual liberty and judicial independence. Ultimately, the author asserts that the doctrine’s perpetuation is both legally untenable and dangerous to democracy.

Download

Share

COinS