In the United States v. Blue case in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal prosecution could proceed even if an earlier civil tax fraud penalty had been imposed on the same income understatement. The defendant, Daniel Blue, was charged with willfully attempting to evade and defeat his income taxes for two years. Prior to this indictment, he paid an assessment of fraud penalties related to these charges under protest and filed claims for refund which were rejected by IRS. He argued that further prosecution would constitute double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense - which is prohibited by Fifth Amendment of U.S Constitution. However, Supreme Court held that imposition of a civil sanction does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution under different statutes relating to similar conduct because they are not considered as punishment but rather remedial measures designed primarily to protect government from financial loss. Therefore it doesn't violate Double Jeopardy Clause. The court also noted that while government may have acted improperly in using information obtained during audit process against him criminally without advising him about his constitutional rights (Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause), remedy lies in suppression of evidence thus obtained and not dismissal of indictment itself.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Blue, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of double jeopardy and due process. He contended that by allowing the government to proceed with its tax evasion case against Blue after previously dismissing an indictment on similar grounds, it essentially gave prosecutors two bites at the apple in violation of constitutional protections. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that dismissal of an earlier indictment did not constitute acquittal or termination in favor of defendant; hence no double jeopardy existed. To him, this interpretation undermined defendants' rights and allowed undue prosecutorial discretion which could lead to harassment and oppression through repeated prosecutions for same offense.