In the United States v. Lanza et al., 1922, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that prosecution by both federal and state courts for the same act is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case involved Antonio Lanza who was convicted in Washington State court for manufacturing and selling liquor during Prohibition, violating state law. He was later prosecuted and convicted under federal law for essentially identical offenses committed at precisely the same time as those prosecuted in state court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Lanza argued that his second conviction violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy - being tried twice for substantially similar offenses arising from a single act or series of acts. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing on behalf of unanimous court held that because "an act denounced as a crime by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against each," it can be punished by each without offending principles of double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Lanza et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of double jeopardy, arguing that it was not applicable in this case as both federal and state governments were prosecuting for different offenses under their respective laws. He contended that a single act could violate two sovereigns' laws and thus be subject to separate prosecutions without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to him, each government has its own set of rules and regulations which are independent from one another; therefore, they should have their own right to enforce them separately even if it involves punishing an individual twice for essentially committing what appears to be a singular crime. His perspective emphasized on maintaining distinct jurisdictions between federal and state authorities rather than focusing solely on protecting individuals from multiple punishments.