In the 1905 case of Jack v. Kansas, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Mr. Jack, was initially tried in federal court for introducing liquor into an Indian reservation - a violation of federal law - where he was acquitted. Subsequently, he was prosecuted by the state of Kansas for essentially the same crime but under state law which prohibited selling alcohol without a license. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that it violated his protection against double jeopardy as guaranteed by Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld Mr.Jack's conviction stating that successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns (in this case Federal government and State government) did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause because each had distinct interests they could protect through enforcement of their own laws even if those laws proscribed identical conduct. This ruling established what is known as "dual sovereignty doctrine," allowing both federal and state governments to prosecute someone for similar offenses without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for JACK v. KANSAS, 1905, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated Jack's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that Kansas' law allowing a person to be tried and convicted without being present in court was unconstitutional as it denied them due process of law. Harlan believed this right to be fundamental and inviolable regardless of state laws or regulations. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “due process,” arguing that it should encompass all legal proceedings including trials in absentia (in absence). In his view, denying an individual their right to appear at their own trial fundamentally undermined justice and fairness within the American judicial system.