Page 13 - Suffolk University Law Review
P. 13
SUFFOLKUNJVERSITYLAW REVIEW [Vol. L:587
if Puerto Rico were a state, and detennined that the Mann Act applied only to
the interstate transportation of minors.78
The "ultimate source of power" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court
coexists with the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, which is also recognized by the
Court. This ''ultimate source of power" is used to establish a type of
sovereignty needed to apply the double jeopardy exception. Furthermore, the
Court noted that in the context of double jeopardy, sovereignty "its ordinary meaning."79 Puerto Rico, the Court acknowledged, became
ºsovereign "in one cornmonly understood sense of that tenn. "8 The Court
added that, "if our double jeopardy decisions hinged on measuring an entity's
self-governance, the emergence of the Commonwealth would have resulted as
well in the capacity to bring the kind of successive prosecutions attempted
here."81 Under this type of sovereignty, Puerto Rico's criminal justice system
is not subject to federal authority. The extent of the U.S. Supreme Court's
conclusion that Puerto Rico's sovereignty is not the type required to apply the
double jeopardy exception is that Puerto Rican prosecutors cannot prosecute an
individual for the same crimes as federal prosecutors, and vice versa.
The scope of the decision is evident, as the Court specified that for purposes
of its decision, the traditional definition of sovereignty did not apply. 82 The
Court noted that it asked "a narrow, historically focused question," and that its
analysis was limited to answering whether "two prosecuting authorities are
different sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes."83 The Court explicitly
determined that "the test we have devised to decide whether two governments
are distinct for double jeopardy purposes overtly disregards cornmon indicia of
sovereignty.v'" The double jeopardy analysis exercised by the Court "is thus
historical, not functional. "85
To understand this historical inquiry, the Court invites us to imagine a pair
of parallel lines that have never intersected, each representing two sovereigns. 86
2421 (2012) (outlawing transportingindividuals for purpose of prostitution).
78. See Maldonado-Burgos, 844 F.3d at 350 (discussing "clear congressional intent to grant Puerto Rico
state-Iike autonorny").
79. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct, 1863, 1870 (2016) (stating double jeopardy inapplicable wben two
separate sovereigns seek prosecution of individual).
80. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2016).
81. See id. (determining dual-sovereignty test focuses on source of governing power).
82. See id. at 1870.
83. See id. at 1867. Indeed, the Court specified that its "inquiry does not turn, as the term 'sovereignty'
sometimes suggests, on the degree to which the second entity is autonomous from the first or sets its own
political course." Id. Additionally, the Court determined that "sovereignty in this context does not bear its
ordinary meaning." Id. at 1870.
84. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1870.
85. See id. at 1871 (describing need to examine origin and "ultimate source" of both prosecutorial
powers).
86. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1871 (2016) (determining parallel line approach
makes states separate sovereigns).
if Puerto Rico were a state, and detennined that the Mann Act applied only to
the interstate transportation of minors.78
The "ultimate source of power" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court
coexists with the sovereignty of Puerto Rico, which is also recognized by the
Court. This ''ultimate source of power" is used to establish a type of
sovereignty needed to apply the double jeopardy exception. Furthermore, the
Court noted that in the context of double jeopardy, sovereignty "
ºsovereign "in one cornmonly understood sense of that tenn. "8 The Court
added that, "if our double jeopardy decisions hinged on measuring an entity's
self-governance, the emergence of the Commonwealth would have resulted as
well in the capacity to bring the kind of successive prosecutions attempted
here."81 Under this type of sovereignty, Puerto Rico's criminal justice system
is not subject to federal authority. The extent of the U.S. Supreme Court's
conclusion that Puerto Rico's sovereignty is not the type required to apply the
double jeopardy exception is that Puerto Rican prosecutors cannot prosecute an
individual for the same crimes as federal prosecutors, and vice versa.
The scope of the decision is evident, as the Court specified that for purposes
of its decision, the traditional definition of sovereignty did not apply. 82 The
Court noted that it asked "a narrow, historically focused question," and that its
analysis was limited to answering whether "two prosecuting authorities are
different sovereigns for double jeopardy purposes."83 The Court explicitly
determined that "the test we have devised to decide whether two governments
are distinct for double jeopardy purposes overtly disregards cornmon indicia of
sovereignty.v'" The double jeopardy analysis exercised by the Court "is thus
historical, not functional. "85
To understand this historical inquiry, the Court invites us to imagine a pair
of parallel lines that have never intersected, each representing two sovereigns. 86
2421 (2012) (outlawing transportingindividuals for purpose of prostitution).
78. See Maldonado-Burgos, 844 F.3d at 350 (discussing "clear congressional intent to grant Puerto Rico
state-Iike autonorny").
79. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct, 1863, 1870 (2016) (stating double jeopardy inapplicable wben two
separate sovereigns seek prosecution of individual).
80. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2016).
81. See id. (determining dual-sovereignty test focuses on source of governing power).
82. See id. at 1870.
83. See id. at 1867. Indeed, the Court specified that its "inquiry does not turn, as the term 'sovereignty'
sometimes suggests, on the degree to which the second entity is autonomous from the first or sets its own
political course." Id. Additionally, the Court determined that "sovereignty in this context does not bear its
ordinary meaning." Id. at 1870.
84. See Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. at 1870.
85. See id. at 1871 (describing need to examine origin and "ultimate source" of both prosecutorial
powers).
86. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1871 (2016) (determining parallel line approach
makes states separate sovereigns).
