In the 1942 case of Bowles v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant could be convicted for multiple offenses arising from a single act or transaction under different statutes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Bowles, had been charged and convicted separately for both stealing and receiving stolen government property based on one act - taking bags of mail from a post office. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy as he was being punished twice for essentially the same offense. The Supreme Court disagreed with Bowles' argument and upheld his convictions. It held that Congress intended to create two separate offenses when it enacted laws against theft and receipt of stolen property respectively; therefore convicting someone under both does not violate double jeopardy protections because each crime requires proof of an element that other does not have (i.e., stealing involves taking while receiving involves possession). This decision affirmed Congress's power to define crimes and set punishments within constitutional limits.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowles v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of statutory interpretation and constitutional law. He contended that Congress did not intend to make it a crime merely to possess goods obtained in violation of price control regulations, but rather intended to punish those who knowingly violated such regulations themselves. Furthermore, he asserted that interpreting the statute as criminalizing mere possession would raise serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause because it could potentially penalize innocent conduct without any requirement of mens rea or guilty knowledge on part of defendant. Therefore, he believed that this interpretation should be avoided unless Congress' intent was unmistakably clear which according to him wasn't in this case.