In the case of Bowen v. United States (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law allowing for double punishment and prosecution under both state and federal laws for the same act was not in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Richard Dale Bowen, had been convicted in an Ohio court on charges related to theft from interstate shipment, then later charged with similar offenses by a federal grand jury based on those same acts. He argued this constituted double jeopardy. However, because separate sovereigns - namely state and federal governments - were involved, each could enact laws to protect their own peace and dignity independently without infringing upon constitutional rights against multiple prosecutions or punishments for identical offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowen v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an indictment that did not specify which statute was violated went against established legal precedent and principles of fairness. He contended that it is essential for an indictment to clearly state what law has been broken so as to provide adequate notice and opportunity for defense preparation. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different courts have interpreted this requirement, leading to unequal treatment of defendants across jurisdictions. In his view, allowing such ambiguity undermines the constitutional right to be informed of accusations and could potentially lead down a slippery slope towards more arbitrary prosecutions.