In the 1995 case of Tommy L. Rutledge v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be sentenced for both conspiracy to commit a crime and the substantive offense itself if they are part of the same criminal act or transaction. The court found that punishing someone twice for essentially committing one crime violated double jeopardy protections in the Fifth Amendment of Constitution. In this particular case, Rutledge was convicted on drug charges including conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base - two crimes arising from one set of circumstances. The ruling meant his sentence had to be reduced because he could not be punished separately for both offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Tommy L. Rutledge v. United States, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of "in relation to" in 18 U.S.C §924(c) was too broad and could lead to unfair sentencing outcomes. She believed that this phrase should be interpreted more narrowly, requiring a closer connection between the firearm use or possession and the drug trafficking crime than merely having both occur during the same time period or as part of a common plan. In her view, there must be evidence showing that the firearm facilitated or had a role in committing drug trafficking crime; otherwise it would not meet “in relation” requirement under Section 924(c). Furthermore, she expressed concern about potential double jeopardy issues arising from multiple punishments for essentially one criminal act if firearms were used only incidentally during commission of another offense.