In the case of United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be retried after a judge has accepted their motion for acquittal, even if the jury failed to reach a verdict. The court held that this would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense. This decision came about when Martin Linen Supply Co and its officers were charged with violating antitrust laws but due to lack of evidence, they moved for judgment of acquittal before submission to jury. After two juries could not agree on a verdict (hung), trial judges granted defendants' motions for acquittal based on insufficiency of Government's proof - an action contested by government as it wanted another trial.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing that it should not apply in this case because there was no final judgment or acquittal by a jury. He contended that when a judge dismisses an indictment due to insufficient evidence, it does not constitute an "acquittal" as defined by traditional legal standards and thus double jeopardy protections do not apply. According to him, only verdicts rendered by juries can be considered true acquittals under the Constitution. Therefore, he believed that retrial after dismissal for lack of evidence should be permissible without violating constitutional rights against double jeopardy.