In Prince v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of federal bank robbery laws. The defendant, Prince, had been convicted for both entering a bank with intent to commit a felony and robbing that same bank - two separate offenses under the Federal Bank Robbery Act. On appeal, he argued that Congress did not intend for these to be treated as distinct crimes when committed in one act or series of acts. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his convictions on both counts. The court reasoned that while it may seem harsh to punish someone twice for essentially one criminal undertaking (entering then robbing), this was what Congress intended when they wrote the law as they did - listing different aspects of bank robbery as separate offenses each carrying their own punishment. Therefore, even though committing one offense inherently involves committing another (you can't rob a bank without first entering it), each is considered its own crime under federal law and can be punished separately.

In the dissenting opinion for Prince v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2113(e) was incorrect and overly broad. He believed that Congress intended this section to apply only when a defendant forced someone to accompany him in order to facilitate his escape or prevent detection, not simply because they were together during the commission of a bank robbery. In other words, he thought it should be applied only when there is an additional element of force or threat beyond what is inherent in the underlying crime itself. Furthermore, he contended that interpreting this provision so broadly could lead to absurd results where defendants are punished more severely for less serious crimes just because they happen to involve moving someone from one place to another.