In the 1984 case Garrett v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's prior conviction could be used to enhance his sentence for a subsequent offense under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute, even if he was not previously charged or convicted for those offenses. The court held that it did not violate double jeopardy principles because each violation of law constituted a separate "unit of prosecution." In this case, Garrett had been involved in several drug-related crimes over many years and was sentenced under CCE based on these activities. He argued that using his past convictions to increase his sentence violated double jeopardy protections as he had already served time for them. However, the court disagreed stating that each crime is considered separately when determining sentences under CCE.

In the dissenting opinion for Garrett v. United States, Justice Brennan argued that the majority misinterpreted Congress's intent in drafting the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute. He believed that this law was designed to target high-ranking drug traffickers who maintained a supervisory role over ongoing illegal operations rather than individuals involved in isolated transactions. Brennan contended that by applying CCE charges to Mr. Garrett, who had been convicted of several unrelated drug offenses spanning many years but not necessarily part of an ongoing enterprise, the Court expanded its scope beyond what Congress intended and violated principles of fairness and due process. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse or overuse of such broad interpretation by prosecutors seeking harsher penalties for defendants with multiple convictions without proving their involvement in a continuous criminal enterprise as required under CCE statute.