Denezpi v. United States

Summary

Justice Barrett, writing for the Court, held that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits successive prosecutions for offenses defined by separate sovereigns even when the same sovereign conducts both prosecutions. Because Denezpi's tribal assault-and-battery offense and federal aggravated-sexual-abuse offense derived from distinct sovereigns, his federal prosecution could proceed regardless of whether the earlier CFR-court prosecutor exercised federal authority. The Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit without deciding whether CFR-court prosecutors exercise federal or tribal power or whether federal regulations assimilate tribal offenses. Justice Gorsuch dissented, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joining Parts I and III. Those portions emphasized the federal character of CFR courts and argued that successive prosecutions by the same sovereign violate double-jeopardy principles. Writing only for himself in Part II, Gorsuch also criticized the dual-sovereignty doctrine and argued that the initial conviction was actually for a federal regulatory offense assimilating tribal law.