Well, this looks interesting. The Supreme Court will look at the question of whether a person who is found innocent on federal charges or is pardoned of those charges by someone like Donald Trump, can then be charged a state court. Or does that violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy? This issue was originally raised by the world’s oddest bedfellows, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas, two or three years ago. When these issues originally came in front of the Supreme Court in the mid-19th century, the Supreme Court said it was okay to file federal and state charges for the same crime (largely because slaveholders wanted to be able to charge people who were hiding slaves if they escape federal charges). It is relevant now of course around the issue of all the various people who work for Trump who face federal charges of various kinds. New York State, for instance, is interested in perhaps charging Paul Manafort with some of his financial crimes if Trump pardons him for the federal ones. The Supreme Court has actually allocated extra time for these arguments, so important is this case.