In Petite v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of a policy that would prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense by different jurisdictions within the federal government. The case involved George Petite who was convicted twice for essentially the same crime - once by a District Court and again by a Circuit Court. He appealed his second conviction on grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that he should not be tried twice for what was effectively one criminal act. The Supreme Court agreed with him and reversed his second conviction, establishing what came to be known as "Petite Policy". This ruling emphasized respect for individual rights against repeated prosecutions and reinforced constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Petite v. United States, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss a second indictment on grounds of prosecutorial discretion and policy rather than constitutional law. He argued that there was no legal basis for dismissing an indictment because it violated Department of Justice policy, as such policies are not laws and do not have binding force in court. Furthermore, he contended that allowing prosecutors to decide when double jeopardy applies would undermine the purpose of this constitutional protection: preventing government harassment through repeated prosecutions for the same offense. In his view, only courts should determine whether a defendant has been subjected to double jeopardy based on established legal principles rather than discretionary prosecution policies.