One Crime, Two Sentences?

Xylee Alvarez

Oct 2025

The Supreme Court considers whether punishing a defendant twice for one fatal shooting violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. 

On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Barrett v. United States, a case that raises an age-old constitutional question: how many times can someone be punished for the same act? The court is now being asked to decide whether giving two separate penalties for one lethal shooting violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

In this case, Dwayne Barrett, who was convicted for participating in a robbery that ended in the death of a man named Gamar Dafalla. Barrett didn’t pull the trigger, but he was the getaway driver, and charged under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (using a firearm during a crime) and § 924 (j) (causing a death with that firearm). The issue is whether Congress intended both statutes to apply at the same time or if punishing Barrett twice amounts to double jeopardy. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment permit two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)? 

While listening to oral arguments, the question weighing on my mind was when does justice turn into overpunishment? Can it turn into overpunishment? Even while reading between the lines of the case, it can be tricky to say. Barrett’s lawyer argued that  §  924(c) is a “lesser-included offense” of § 924(j), meaning that if someone is already convicted for the murder with a firearm, they shouldn’t stack another penalty for simply using the same gun. It is one act, not two separate crimes. Several justices pushed hard on this point. Justice Thomas wanted to know where to draw the line: should every gun offense under  § 924(c) count as “lesser-included”? On the other hand, Justice Sotomayor referenced earlier cases suggesting that Congress can impose overlapping punishments if it clearly says so.

However, here, Congress didn’t. This is exactly what the bigger problem is: when the text isn’t clear, shouldn’t the tie go to the defendant? This poses as a prime example of just how easily the justice system can turn one bad act into a mountain of sentences, a hill of sentences that often ends in injustice. The consequences should still be faced, but if the government can multiply punishments for the same event, it chips away at the fairness the Constitution promises. 

The Supreme Court heard Barrett v. United States in October 2025. 

The entire hearing seemed to circle back to the same issue, which was clarity. This is a classic case where the principles of justice and legislative intent collide. In the final minutes of the hearing, Barrett’s lawyer returned to the podium for a rebuttal. A short yet sharp moment. Larsen emphasized that the government's interpretation would “make double jeopardy the norm, not the exception.” He argued that Congress designed § 924(j) as an enhancement, not a separate offense, and that stacking both undermines the fairness the Constitution demands. The government, in contrast, closed by arguing that Congress did intend separate punishments, pointing to the distinct harms each statute addresses. 

Personally, the Double Jeopardy Clause exists to protect people from being punished twice for the same wrongdoing. If both charges rise from the same act, fairness demands that they combine. It doesn’t mean Barrett or anyone else in the future walks free; it just means that the system should avoid piling sentences for one crime under two labels. It means that the system should value clarity. In a country that prides itself on due process, restraint is a form of justice. 

I predict a 6-3 decision in favor of the United States, upholding Barrett’s dual convictions. The majority, likely led by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and possibly Kagan, will find that Congress intended the two statutes to apply separately, allowing multiple punishments when a firearm is both used and causes death. 

The court did not seem fully convinced by Barrett’s argument. They will likely emphasize that this interpretation is what best supports Congress’s intent to deter such violence and protect the safety of the public. Justice in this case may not mean leniency but solely accountability. 

Sources

Supreme Court, www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-5774_6jf7.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct. 2025.