In the case of Bartkus v. Illinois, 1958, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state prosecution following a federal one for the same act was not in violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. The defendant, Albert Bartkus, had been acquitted on federal bank robbery charges but was later convicted under state law for the same crime. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that it violated his constitutional rights against being tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy). However, in a 6-3 decision led by Justice Felix Frankfurter, it held that successive prosecutions by different sovereigns (state and federal) did not constitute double jeopardy because each government has separate interests and laws to enforce.

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 for the same crime constituted double punishment and was therefore unconstitutional. Furthermore, he rejected the idea of "dual sovereignty," stating it was not supported by constitutional text or history and could lead to oppressive government practices. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how this principle had been applied in previous cases, suggesting it was being used selectively to uphold convictions rather than protect individual rights as intended by framers of Constitution. Thus, he believed Bartkus should have been protected from subsequent state prosecution after his federal acquittal.