Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Do you find hopeless the English that describes the paradox at the end of this passage? :

Two criminal defendants were convicted in Puerto Rico of federal gun charges. After their federal trial, the Commonwealth brought charges in its own courts for the same offenses; the defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment rule that no person “shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” At least since 1922, the federal courts have applied the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. Because the federal government and a state government are two different “sovereigns,” the reasoning goes, each may try a defendant in its own courts without violating the double-jeopardy rule.

But Puerto Rico is not one of the “several states”; the two defendants appealed, and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court earlier this year decided that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign from the United States, meaning the defendants could not be retried. The Commonwealth is looking to the Court to reinstate the prosecution. The result will be a paradox either way; if Puerto Rico loses, it will be because its own courts denied its sovereignty; if it wins, it will be because it used the court of a “foreign sovereign” to set aside the decision of its own court.

Maybe you are able to just skim through the English and be done with it.  But it took me only forever to rewrite the paradox in my head- something like this:

If the Puerto Rico Commonwealth loses, it will be because its own Supreme Court denies it sovereignty;  if it wins, it will be because it uses the US Supreme Court to set aside the decision of its own Supreme Court. 

(And the paradox does not end there: if the US rules for the Commonwealth, that means that sovereignty is upheld, which means that the US cannot rule against the Commonwealth's Supreme Court, which means the Commonwealth loses.)