In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Charles Fossatt, the court was asked to decide whether a person who had been convicted and sentenced in a state court could be tried again for the same offense by federal authorities. At issue was whether or not double jeopardy applied when an individual is charged with violating both state and federal laws arising from the same incident. The appellant argued that since he had already been found guilty in a state court, it would violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy if he were tried again by federal authorities for essentially the same crime. However, after considering all of the evidence presented before them, including precedent set forth in earlier cases, as well as relevant statutes and regulations governing such matters at that time period; ultimately,the Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of double jeopardy because each government has its own jurisdiction over criminal proceedings within their respective boundaries which allows them to prosecute individuals independently without infringing upon one another's rights or authority.

In the case of The United States v. Charles Fossatt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a vessel in navigable waters within its boundaries. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such offenses were under federal jurisdiction and could only be tried in federal courts. However, Justice Grier dissented from this decision and argued that states should have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government when it came to crimes committed on vessels within their territorial limits. He reasoned that since Congress had not explicitly stated otherwise, states should retain their right to prosecute these cases just like any other criminal matter occurring within their borders. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress intended for all maritime offenses to be exclusively tried by federal courts then they would have made this clear through legislation or some other means of communication rather than leaving it up for interpretation by the judiciary branch of government.