In the case of Gore v. United States, 1957, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act for selling heroin without having paid the special tax required by law. The defendant argued that his punishment was cruel and unusual because he had been sentenced to separate penalties for three offenses arising from one sale of narcotics: (1) selling without having paid the tax; (2) selling not in or from an original stamped package; and (3) facilitating concealment after importation. However, Justice Felix Frankfurter writing for a unanimous court held that Congress intended each violation to be a separate offense subject to its own penalty even though they arose out of one act or transaction. Therefore, it did not constitute double jeopardy nor was it cruel and unusual punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Gore v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the defendant was unfairly punished with multiple sentences for a single act of selling narcotics illegally. He contended that Congress did not intend to impose cumulative penalties for one sale transaction and believed it was unjust to interpret the law in such a way as to allow this kind of sentencing. According to him, each statute should be seen as defining separate offenses when different proof is required for each charge; however, in this case, all charges stemmed from one singular action - an illegal drug sale. Therefore, he concluded that imposing three punishments on Mr.Gore violated his protection against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment.