In Duke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a federal court could try a defendant for an offense that had already been tried in state court without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case involved William Duke who was first convicted in Georgia state court for possessing and transporting liquor during Prohibition, then later charged with similar offenses under federal law. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy as he was being prosecuted twice for essentially the same crime. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction by ruling unanimously that dual sovereignty doctrine allows separate sovereigns (state and federal governments) to prosecute individuals separately for identical crimes committed within their jurisdictions without infringing upon constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Duke v. United States, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. He argued that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant. In his view, allowing such evidence to be used in court would undermine these constitutional protections and encourage law enforcement officers to disregard them in their investigations. Furthermore, he believed that excluding illegally obtained evidence from trials was not only necessary for upholding individual rights but also crucial for maintaining public trust in the justice system as a whole.