In the case of Barr v. United States, 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same offense under different sections of an act if both charges are based on one set of facts. The court held that this would violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. In this case, two defendants were charged with violating two separate sections of a federal law regarding liquor taxes: one section made it illegal to possess distilled spirits upon which no tax had been paid; another made it illegal to remove or conceal such spirits with intent to defraud the government of tax revenue. Both charges stemmed from a single incident in which they possessed and transported untaxed alcohol. The court found that these were essentially identical offenses and thus trying them separately constituted double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Barr v. United States, Justice Murphy argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act was too broad and could lead to unjust results. He believed that this section should only apply when a person knowingly and willingly violates price regulations, not when they do so unknowingly or by mistake. In his view, punishing individuals who unintentionally violate these rules is unfair and goes against traditional principles of criminal law which require intent for conviction. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuse of power by administrative agencies if such wide interpretations were allowed to stand unchallenged.