In the 1931 case of Blockburger v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court established a test to determine whether two charges constitute double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense), which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Sam Blockburger, was charged with multiple violations of a narcotics law for selling morphine and heroin on different days without prescriptions. He argued that these sales were part of one continuous act and thus should be considered as one offense rather than separate ones. However, in its decision against him, the court ruled that each sale constituted a distinct violation because they involved different drugs sold on different days. This led to what's now known as "Blockburger Test," stating that if each statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact which other does not then there are two offenses instead of just one.

In the dissenting opinion for Blockburger v. United States, Justice Stone argued that a single act cannot be prosecuted as two separate offenses simply because it violates two statutory provisions. He contended that the majority's interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause was too narrow and failed to protect defendants from multiple punishments for a single criminal act. According to Justice Stone, if an individual is charged with violating two statutes through one action, then they should only face punishment under whichever statute provides for greater penalties. This would prevent prosecutors from using overlapping laws to impose excessive sentences on defendants who have committed only one crime in reality.