[Robert DeLong]

Now I do see, and always have seen, Federal charges as a form of double-jeopardy. I can’t understand why nobody hasn’t challenged these actions of double-jeopardy as unconstitutional.

[Still Thinking]

Here here!

[omega4412]

as a form of double-jeopardy

Two sovereigns. The same act is a separate offense against the state and the federal sovereigns. I'm not saying that I agree with the doctrine, but this is how you can search for the Supreme Court rulings on these laws.

[Seruzawa]

USSC upholds this double jeopardy.

[aspasia]

To keep you up to date, just last month the Supreme Court is upheld (7-2) a constitutional rule that allows state and federal governments to prosecute someone for the same crime (dual sovereignty).

[DoodleDawg]

I can’t understand why nobody hasn’t challenged these actions of double-jeopardy as unconstitutional.

Different crimes, different sentence, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply. The constitutionality has been upheld in the past but this may be just the court to take a case like this one to and re-assess the double jeopardy claims.

[hanamizu]

I can’t understand why nobody hasn’t challenged these actions of double-jeopardy as unconstitutional.

---

I believe it has been challenged and courts (SCOTUS?) have ruled the ban on double-jeopardy only applies to each ‘sovereign’ entity, the states being one and the Feds being the other. So states can’t subject you to double jeopardy and the Feds can’t either. But each can charge you with a crime for the same action.

So MN charged him with St. Floyd’s murder and the Feds charged him with depriving St. Floyd of his rights. Not saying it’s right, but that is how the law stands as of now.

[Fireone]

Double jeopardy only applies to being tried twice for the same charges. This federal trial was a civil rights charge.