In Ladner v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret a federal statute that imposed separate penalties for each officer assaulted with a deadly weapon during the commission of an offense. The defendant, Ladner, had fired a single shotgun blast which wounded two officers. He was convicted and sentenced separately for each assault under this law. However, he appealed on grounds that his actions constituted only one offense since it resulted from just one shot being fired. The Supreme Court agreed with Ladner's interpretation of the law and held that if only one act of violence is committed by the offender (in this case firing a single gunshot), then it should be considered as one offense regardless of how many people are injured in that act. Therefore, imposing multiple punishments based on number of victims would violate double jeopardy principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Ladner v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority had misinterpreted Congressional intent in their ruling. He believed that Congress intended to impose separate punishments for each officer injured by a single discharge of a firearm, as indicated by the language used in the statute. Furthermore, he pointed out that this interpretation was consistent with general principles of criminal law which allow multiple punishments for a single act causing harm to more than one person or property interest. He also criticized the majority's reliance on ambiguous legislative history and its failure to consider relevant precedents supporting his view.