In the 1911 case of Graham v. State of West Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state law that allowed for increased punishment for repeat offenders, also known as recidivist statutes or "three-strikes" laws. The plaintiff, John Thomas Graham, argued that his sentence was unconstitutional because it punished him twice for the same crime - once when he was initially convicted and again when his past conviction led to a harsher sentence after another conviction. However, the court ruled against him stating that these laws do not violate double jeopardy protections because they punish repeated criminal behavior rather than one specific act multiple times. This decision set an important precedent in American jurisprudence by affirming states' rights to enact such legislation aimed at deterring habitual criminals from reoffending.

In the dissenting opinion for Graham v. State of West Virginia, Justice Harlan argued that the state's habitual criminal statute violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that it was unjust to increase a defendant's sentence based on prior convictions without allowing them to defend against those charges in their current trial. He also believed it was discriminatory to apply this law only to certain types of crimes, rather than all offenses equally. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses by prosecutors who could manipulate sentencing outcomes by strategically choosing when and how they presented evidence of past convictions.