In Gavieres v. United States (1910), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, upholding the principle of double jeopardy outlined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The case involved Felipe Gavieres, who was charged with libel against a public official in Philippine Islands - then an American territory - and sentenced to prison by local courts. Later, he was again indicted on similar charges based on his previous conviction but this time under a different law enacted after his first trial had concluded. He appealed to higher courts arguing that it constituted double jeopardy as he was being prosecuted twice for essentially identical offenses arising from one act of alleged libelous publication. The Supreme Court agreed with Gavieres' argument and reversed his second conviction stating that even though two laws were involved, they both aimed at punishing essentially same misconduct i.e., defamation of public officials which arose out of single act committed by him; thus trying him separately under each law amounted to placing him in double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Gavieres v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated by his second prosecution for an offense he had already been acquitted of in a Philippine court. He contended that this was double jeopardy, which is prohibited under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The majority held that because Philippine law allowed multiple prosecutions for different aspects of one crime, it did not violate U.S laws or treaties with Spain from which Philippines' legal system originated. However, Justice Harlan disagreed and maintained that regardless of local customs or laws in territories acquired by America, fundamental American principles such as protection against double jeopardy should be upheld to ensure justice and fairness.