In United States v. Benjamin More, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could not be convicted of an offense if they had been acquitted in another court for the same crime. The case involved Benjamin More who was charged with violating a federal law prohibiting trading with enemies during wartime. He had previously been tried and acquitted by a state court on similar charges related to his alleged involvement in trading with enemy nations during war time. The Supreme Court held that due process principles barred double jeopardy and thus precluded conviction of Mr. More for the federal charge since he had already been acquitted by the state court on similar charges arising from identical facts underlying both prosecutions.

In United States v. Benjamin More, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal court had jurisdiction to try an individual for treason against the United States. The majority opinion held that it did have such authority and found More guilty of treason. However, Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this ruling and argued that Congress had not given any power to the federal courts to hear cases of treason committed against state governments or their citizens; rather, he believed these matters should be left up to state authorities alone. He further contended that allowing federal courts to preside over such trials would lead to a dangerous concentration of power in one branch of government at the expense of states' rights and could potentially result in oppressive actions by those same branches if they were allowed unchecked authority over all criminal proceedings within their respective jurisdictions.