| Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 13, 2016 Decided June 9, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Petitioner v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle, et al. |
| Docket no. | 15-108 |
| Citations | 579U.S. 59 (more) 136 S. Ct. 1863; 195L. Ed. 2d 179 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Pueblo v. Sanchez Valle, 192 D.P.R. 594, 2015TSPR 25 (Mar. 20, 2015);cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 28 (2015). |
| Holding | |
| Thedual sovereignty doctrine does not apply to the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. Therefore, theDouble Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting a single person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in part) |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V; Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000 | |
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), is acriminal case that came before theSupreme Court of the United States, which considered whetherPuerto Rico and thefederal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of theDouble Jeopardy Clause of theUnited States Constitution.[1]
In essence, the clause establishes that an individualcannot be tried for the same offense twice under the same sovereignty.
The petitioner claimed that Puerto Rico has a different sovereignty because ofits political status while others claimed that it does not, including the respondent, theSupreme Court of Puerto Rico, and theSolicitor General of the United States.[2]
In a 6–2 decision, the Court affirmed that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting the same person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.
The decision was affirmed 6-2 in an opinion by JusticeKagan on June 9, 2016. JusticeGinsburg filed a concurring opinion in which JusticeThomas joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
JusticeBreyer filed a dissenting opinion in which JusticeSotomayor joined.[3]
The argument appears to diminish the independent authority to prosecute criminal laws that thegovernment of Puerto Rico thought that it had since thePuerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950 and subsequent ratification of theConstitution of Puerto Rico in 1952.[4]