The United States Supreme Court Monday issued its opinion in Denezpi v. United States, ruling in favor of the dual sovereignty doctrine. The dual sovereignty doctrine applies to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, allowing for two sovereign entities to charge one defendant under the same set of facts under two different laws and legal authorities.

In Denezpi, Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pled guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses (CFR). The CFR is a system of courts which covers areas of tribal sovereignty without an established tribal court. The CFR is managed and funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a federal government agency.

Denezpi was later charged under the Major Crimes Act for “aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country” for the same alleged assault. Denezpi moved to dismiss the indictmentm citing the fact that the federal government was the prosecuting and offense defining entity in both cases.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reasons that the clause protect defendants from “successive prosecutions” for the same offense but “does not prohibit twice placing a person in jeopardy” for the same conduct. Barrett goes on to conclude that, “Denezpi’s single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute. Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those ‘offence[s]’ are not ‘the same.'”

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Gorsuch raised concerns about the majority ruling, saying:

Once more, the Court’s reply is unpersuasive. It admits that, in case after case, this Court has emphasized that the dual-sovereignty doctrine does not permit successive prosecutions by the same sovereign….Yet the Court today tries to brush all these precedents aside, offhandedly suggesting that each was mistaken…If taken to its extreme, the Court’s reasoning could seemingly allow a State to punish an individual twice for identical offenses, so long as one is proscribed by state law and the other by federal law.

The final ruling was 6-3.