In the 1916 case of Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy and self-incrimination. The defendant, Mr. Lewis, was indicted for perjury after testifying in his own defense during an earlier trial where he was acquitted of embezzlement charges. He argued that this indictment violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy and self-incrimination because it used evidence from a previous trial in which he had been found not guilty. The Supreme Court disagreed with Lewis's argument, ruling that the Fifth Amendment did not protect him from being prosecuted for perjury committed while testifying at his own trial since perjury is considered a separate offense distinct from the original charge (in this case, embezzlement). Therefore, prosecuting him for perjury did not constitute double jeopardy nor violate his right against self-incrimination as these protections do not extend to false statements made under oath.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewis v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice James Clark McReynolds, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act and its application to this case. They argued that Congress did not intend to give national banks immunity from being sued in state courts when it passed the Act. The justices believed that such an interpretation was inconsistent with both precedent and principles of federalism. Furthermore, they contended that even if a bank is federally chartered or incorporated under federal law, it does not automatically become a federal entity immune from state jurisdiction. Instead, they suggested that whether a bank can be sued in state court should depend on factors like where its principal place of business is located or where it carries out most of its activities.