Who Has Jurisdiction? State Vs. Federal Law

The United States has a dual court system, with both state and federal courts. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions take place in state courts, which have jurisdiction over defendants who violate the laws of that state. However, a defendant can face prosecution for the same crime in both state and federal court, as state and federal governments are considered separate sovereigns. This means that a defendant can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence in both state and federal court without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Dual sovereignty

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine recognises that the state and federal governments are separate sovereign entities. This means that a defendant can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence in both state and federal court without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. For example, a crime may occur on federal land and non-federal land, giving both the state and federal governments jurisdiction. Alternatively, a crime may violate state law, but if the defendant moves the body across state lines, a federal crime is committed, and a second state may also have jurisdiction.

In the case of Gamble v. United States (2019), the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the concept of dual sovereignty. This means that under federal law, the state and federal governments may prosecute a defendant for the same crime without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, if the defendant's act violated both state laws and federal statutes.

The Department of Justice has guidelines that discourage prosecutors from bringing charges against a defendant who has already faced charges in the state system, but there is no absolute ban on the federal government's ability to do so. In practice, it is rare for a defendant to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence in both state and federal court. When there are competing claims to jurisdiction, the prosecuting attorneys usually try to reach an agreement about who will go first. The first court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant will keep the case, and any other courts claiming jurisdiction must wait until the case is over or the first court releases its jurisdiction.

State and federal charges for the same crime

In the United States, a person may face both state and federal charges for the same crime if the crime violates both state and federal laws. This is made possible by the "dual sovereignty" doctrine, which is an exception to the double jeopardy rule. The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents multiple prosecutions or punishments by the same "sovereign". However, since state and federal governments are considered separate sovereigns, successive state and federal prosecutions do not violate the clause.

For example, a crime may occur partly on federal land and partly on non-federal land, giving both the state and the federal government jurisdiction. Or a crime may violate state law, but as soon as the defendant moves the body across state lines, a federal crime is committed. In this case, a second state may also have jurisdiction. For instance, if a defendant murders a victim in California but dumps the body in Nevada, the defendant has committed crimes in both California and Nevada, as well as under federal law (by crossing state lines).

In most cases, the first-in-time rule applies. When there are competing claims to jurisdiction, the prosecuting attorneys usually try to reach an agreement about who will go first. Typically, the first court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant keeps the case to itself, and any other courts claiming jurisdiction must wait until the case is over or the first court releases its jurisdiction.

While it is possible for a defendant to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence in both state and federal court, it is exceptionally rare. The Department of Justice has guidelines that discourage prosecutors from bringing charges against a defendant who has already faced charges in the state system, but there is no absolute ban on the federal government's ability to do so.

Jurisdiction

The federal government, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over defendants who commit criminal acts on federal property or whose criminal acts cross state lines. For example, a crime might occur partly on federal land and partly on non-federal land, giving both the state and federal governments jurisdiction. Additionally, the federal government has jurisdiction over a group of federally defined crimes, such as immigration fraud and customs violations.

In certain cases, a crime may violate both state and federal laws, leading to concurrent jurisdiction. For instance, a defendant who commits a murder in one state and then moves the body across state lines has committed a crime in two states and under federal law. While the first-in-time rule usually applies in such cases, with the first court to exercise jurisdiction keeping the case, it is possible for a defendant to face prosecution and punishment in both state and federal courts without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This is due to the "'dual sovereignty' doctrine", which recognises state and federal governments as separate sovereign entities, each with the right to prosecute for the same crime if it violates their respective laws.

However, it is important to note that the Department of Justice has guidelines that discourage federal prosecutors from bringing charges against a defendant who has already faced charges in a state court for the same conduct. While this is not an absolute ban, it highlights the complex interplay between state and federal jurisdictions in the US legal system.

State court jurisdiction

State law usually determines which courts have jurisdiction over specific case types. For instance, many states divide adult felonies and misdemeanors between different courts and have juvenile courts with exclusive jurisdiction over most crimes committed by minors. The names of state courts vary, including district court, county court, superior court, or municipal court.

In some cases, a crime may fall under both state and federal jurisdiction. This can occur if a crime takes place on federal land and non-federal land or if a crime violates state law but involves actions that cross state lines, such as moving a body across state lines. In these situations, the state and federal governments have concurrent jurisdiction, and the first-in-time rule usually applies, where the first court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant maintains exclusive jurisdiction until the case is resolved.

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine, recognized by the Supreme Court in cases like Gamble v. United States, allows both state and federal governments to prosecute a defendant for the same crime if it violates both state and federal laws without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This is because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments by the same "sovereign," and state and federal governments are considered separate sovereign entities.

Federal court jurisdiction

In most cases, a defendant will face prosecution in either federal or state court, depending on the nature of the crime and the interests of the respective jurisdictions. State law typically specifies which courts have jurisdiction over different types of cases, with adult felonies and misdemeanours often divided between different courts. Juvenile courts, for instance, have exclusive jurisdiction over most crimes committed by minors.

The "dual sovereignty" doctrine recognises that the state and federal governments are separate sovereign entities, allowing both to prosecute a defendant for the same crime if it violates the laws of each sovereignty without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This means that an individual can be prosecuted and punished in both state and federal courts for identical offences, as seen in the case of Gamble v. United States (2019).

While the Department of Justice discourages federal prosecutors from pursuing charges against defendants already charged by the state, there is no absolute ban on this practice. This discretion allows for case-by-case decisions by state and federal prosecutors, considering factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the impact on local law enforcement needs, and the availability of resources.

Frequently asked questions