In the 1935 case of Dismuke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a defendant could be charged with multiple offenses for one act under different statutes. The defendant, Dismuke, was convicted of both selling and facilitating the sale of narcotics without written orders from a purchaser in violation of two separate sections within the same Act. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy as he was being punished twice for essentially the same offense. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his convictions stating that each section required proof of an additional fact which other did not - thus constituting separate offenses despite arising from a single transaction.

In the dissenting opinion for Dismuke v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the National Prohibition Act was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that under this act, a person could only be charged with one offense if they sold liquor on multiple occasions to an undercover officer during a single transaction or visit. They disagreed with the majority's view that each sale constituted a separate offense and thus warranted separate punishments. This disagreement stemmed from their belief in upholding constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy - being tried twice for substantially the same crime - which they felt were at risk due to the majority’s ruling. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by law enforcement officers who might manipulate circumstances to multiply offenses artificially.