In the District of Columbia v. Johnson case in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense under different jurisdictions. The defendant, Johnson, was initially convicted by a court in Washington D.C., which is considered federal jurisdiction because it's not part of any state. He was then indicted again for the same crime by Maryland authorities since his alleged criminal act had effects there as well. However, he argued this second trial violated his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy - being prosecuted or punished twice for substantially the same crime. The Supreme Court agreed with him and reversed his conviction from Maryland court on grounds that both courts were essentially parts of one sovereign government (the United States), hence they could not separately prosecute someone for an identical offense arising from a single act. This ruling clarified that double jeopardy protections apply across all levels of American law enforcement and judicial systems.

The dissenting opinion in the District of Columbia v. Johnson case argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter, as it was a local issue pertaining to Washington D.C., which is governed by Congress and not subject to state laws or federal constitutional restrictions. The dissenters contended that the court's decision to hear this case set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving disputes within federally controlled territories. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing instead for a more literal reading of its meaning under Fifth Amendment protections. Furthermore, they believed that Johnson had been given adequate opportunity to present his defense during trial and thus did not see any violation of his rights.