In the 1947 case of Gryger v. Burke, Warden, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that allowed for increased sentences for habitual criminals. The appellant, Gryger, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to an extended term due to his status as a fourth-time offender under Pennsylvania's Habitual Criminal Act. He argued that this constituted double jeopardy because he was being punished again for past crimes which he had already served time for. However, the court ruled against him in a unanimous decision stating that enhanced sentencing laws do not violate double jeopardy protections provided by the Fifth Amendment since they are not punishing someone twice for the same crime but rather increasing penalties based on their repeated criminal behavior. The ruling emphasized that such laws aim at deterring recidivism and protecting society from those who have shown persistent disregard for its rules and regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Gryger v. Burke, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the Pennsylvania Habitual Criminal Act was unconstitutional as it violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that a defendant's prior criminal record should not be used to increase their sentence for a current offense because this practice is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. According to him, such an approach punishes individuals twice for past crimes they have already served time for, which goes against principles of justice and fairness in sentencing. Furthermore, he believed that using prior convictions as grounds for harsher sentences could potentially lead to abuses of power by prosecutors who might use this provision selectively or vindictively against certain defendants.