States will still have every right to prosecute state crimes so long as they are not based on exact same elements as a federal conviction.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/

> which seems to be why the rethugs are so hellbent to cram Kavanaugh onto the bench.

Not really. They want him on the bench because he'll be the potential 5th vote in 5-4 decisions in many cases and the new court term starts now.

The Gamble issue is overblown, won't affect that much, and liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsberg are on the side
of ending the "separate sovereign" double jeopardy exception.

> If Mueller turned findings of criminal wrongdoing to the particular states in which those activities and he did not bring Federal cases forward, would that be exempt from the ruling?

Yes. It only would apply in cases of the identical crime tried already by the the federal government or a state. Note that a crime like state income tax evasion is a different crime than federal income tax evasion.

...exception to the double jeopardy clause. This exception allows states (separate sovereigns) to prosecute crimes at the state level that may be pardoned at the federal level...in essence making the Presidential pardon an absolute "get out of jail free card".

A President will then be able to encourage individuals to break the law with the promise of a pardon.

to the double jeopardy clause.

The specific facts of the case are that in 2008, Terance Gamble was convicted of second-degree robbery in Mobile County, Alabama, resulting in his being barred under federal and state law from possessing a firearm in the future.

More than seven years later, Gamble was driving in Mobile when a police officer pulled him over for a faulty tail light. Smelling marijuana coming from Gamble’s car, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered two baggies of marijuana, a digital scale, and a 9mm handgun.

The state of Alabama prosecuted Gamble for possessing marijuana and for being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Gamble received a one-year sentence, which he finished serving on May 14, 2017.

While the Alabama prosecution was ongoing, the federal government charged Gamble for the same offense under federal law: being a felon in possession of a firearm. In other words, the federal government based its prosecution on the same incident on November 29, 2015 that gave rise to his state court conviction. Gamble thereupon was convicted and sentenced to nearly four years in prison -- meaning that he now faced the prospect of being imprisoned for around three more years after he had served his one year state conviction sentence.

Because this is a clear cut case of the same facts being the basis of two separate prosecutions for the same offense, the resolution of the case will not necessarily resolve is the more difficult question of when two prosecutions are considered to arise from the same facts and be based on identically (or nearly identically) defined offenses.

Finally, as has been pointed out several times on other threads, the impetus for the SCOTUS to take this case came from Justice Ginsburg who, together with Justice Thomas, has suggested that the time has come to re-examine the separate (or dual) sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy clause.

I've just been hearing a lot of speculation (primarily on radio - but I only really listen to NPR now) about this impending ruling. What effect might it have on any of the ongoing investigations by Mueller if any?