The Supreme Court case People of Porto Rico v. Ramos in 1913 dealt with the issue of double jeopardy, which is being tried twice for the same crime. The defendant, Ramos, was initially acquitted by a Puerto Rican court on charges related to illegal gambling activities. However, he was later indicted and convicted on similar charges based on new evidence that had not been presented at his first trial. He appealed this conviction to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled against Ramos stating that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply because Puerto Rico's legal system operated independently from the United States federal system under its own constitution and laws as an unincorporated territory of US at that time period (before Jones-Shafroth Act). Therefore, according to dual sovereignty doctrine where two sovereign entities can each try a person separately for what is essentially same offense without violating double jeopardy clause; since both trials were conducted by different jurisdictions - one local and another federal - they did not constitute double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for People of Porto Rico v. Ramos, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Foraker Act and its application to Puerto Rico. He argued that Congress intended to give Puerto Rico a degree of self-governance similar to that enjoyed by states within their own borders when it passed this act. Therefore, he believed that local laws should be interpreted in light of local conditions and traditions rather than being strictly bound by U.S federal law precedents. In his view, applying mainland legal principles without considering these factors could undermine the autonomy granted by Congress and potentially disrupt established social order on the island. Furthermore, he contended that if there was any doubt about how a particular provision should be interpreted or applied under Puerto Rican law, it would be more appropriate for such issues to be resolved locally rather than imposing an external judicial decision.