Legal Definitions - Separate sovereigns doctrine

The Separate Sovereigns Doctrine is a legal principle that allows different governmental entities, each considered a "sovereign" power, to prosecute an individual for the same criminal act without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. While the Fifth Amendment generally prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offense, this doctrine recognizes that when different governments (like a state and the federal government, or two different states) each have jurisdiction over an act that violates their respective laws, each government may pursue its own prosecution.

• Example 1: Federal and State Prosecution

  Imagine a scenario where an individual commits a large-scale drug trafficking operation that spans multiple states. This act violates both federal drug laws and the drug laws of the specific state where the individual was apprehended.

  Under the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine, the federal government could prosecute the individual for violating federal drug statutes. Even if the individual is acquitted or convicted in federal court, the state in which the arrest or a significant part of the operation occurred could then pursue its own separate prosecution for violating state drug laws. Both the federal government and the state government are considered distinct sovereign entities, each with the authority to enforce their own laws against the same underlying criminal conduct.

• Example 2: Two Different State Prosecutions

  Consider a situation where a person commits a series of burglaries, stealing valuable artwork from a museum in State A and then transporting the stolen art across state lines to sell it in State B.

  State A could prosecute the individual for the burglary and theft that occurred within its borders. Separately, State B could also prosecute the individual for receiving stolen property or other related offenses that took place within its jurisdiction, even though these charges stem from the same overall criminal enterprise. Because State A and State B are distinct sovereign governments, each has the right to enforce its own laws against the actions that violated them within their respective territories.

• Example 3: State and Foreign Country Prosecution

  Suppose an individual living in a U.S. state orchestrates a sophisticated cyberattack that targets critical infrastructure located in a foreign country, causing significant damage and disruption there.

  The U.S. state where the individual resides could prosecute them for violating its state laws related to computer crimes or conspiracy, as the planning and execution originated within its jurisdiction. Concurrently, the foreign country whose infrastructure was attacked could also prosecute the individual under its own national laws regarding cyberterrorism or sabotage. The U.S. state and the foreign nation are considered separate sovereigns, each empowered to enforce their distinct legal codes against the same criminal act that impacted their respective domains.