The U.S. Supreme Court case Gamble v. United States in 2018 revolved around the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prevents an individual from being prosecuted for the same crime twice. Terance Martez Gamble was convicted on both state and federal charges for possessing a firearm as a felon, leading him to argue that this constituted double jeopardy. The court upheld his dual convictions by reaffirming the separate sovereigns doctrine, stating that because states and federal government are different entities with distinct interests and laws, each has its own right to prosecute crimes under their respective jurisdictions even if it results in multiple prosecutions for one act.

In the dissenting opinion for Gamble v. United States, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued against the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He contended that this exception, which allows a person to be tried for the same crime in both federal and state courts, is not grounded in constitutional text or structure but rather an unjustifiable judicial invention. He emphasized that early American legal tradition was firmly against double jeopardy and noted that many other democratic countries do not allow it either. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by prosecutors who could use dual sovereignty as a tool to retry defendants until they get a conviction. Ultimately, Gorsuch concluded that there is no good reason why American citizens should be subjected to multiple prosecutions for identical offenses.