In the case of Bartkus v. Illinois, 1957, Albert Bartkus was convicted for robbery in an Illinois state court after a federal jury had acquitted him on charges stemming from the same act. He appealed to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that his second trial violated his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him by a vote of 5-4 stating that dual sovereignty doctrine allows both federal and state courts to prosecute someone for the same act if it violates both federal and state laws without violating double jeopardy clause of Fifth Amendment as they are separate sovereigns.

In the dissenting opinion for Bartkus v. Illinois, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. He contended that a state prosecution following a federal one on identical charges was essentially allowing two trials for the same offense, which he believed to be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view of dual sovereignty doctrine and its application in this case; instead of viewing federal and state governments as separate entities capable of prosecuting independently for identical offenses, Justice Black saw them as part of a single national system designed to protect individual rights under U.S Constitution. Therefore, according to him, permitting successive prosecutions by different branches within this system contradicted constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy.