In The United States v. Furlong, Alias Hobson (1820), the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense in one state and then prosecuted for the same offense in another state. At issue was whether or not double jeopardy applied to offenses committed across multiple states. In this case, John Furlong had been indicted by a grand jury in Pennsylvania on charges of larceny from the mail; he was later arrested and tried for similar crimes in New Jersey. The court held that because each crime occurred within different jurisdictions, it did not constitute double jeopardy under Article III Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution which prohibits successive prosecutions for "the same offence." Therefore, they ruled that Furlong could be prosecuted separately by both states without violating his constitutional rights against double jeopardy.

In the case of The United States v. Furlong, Alias Hobson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense in one state and then tried for that same offense in another state. In this particular case, the defendant had been indicted by two separate states for larceny committed within their respective jurisdictions. The majority opinion held that such double jeopardy did not exist as each indictment was issued by a different sovereign power and thus no protection against it existed under either federal or common law. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed double jeopardy should apply to offenses committed within multiple states regardless of who issued the indictments since they were all part of one nation governed by uniform laws and principles. He argued that allowing defendants to be twice prosecuted for the same crime would lead to oppressive consequences which violated fundamental rights enshrined in both federal and common law statutes protecting citizens from arbitrary government action.