In the 1983 case United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person acquitted of criminal charges could still face civil forfeiture proceedings related to those charges without it constituting double jeopardy. The defendant, Dickerson, was initially charged with selling firearms without a license and was acquitted due to lack of evidence proving he had engaged in business as a dealer rather than as an individual hobbyist. However, following his acquittal, the government initiated forfeiture proceedings against him under federal law which allows for seizure and forfeiture of firearms involved in any violation of firearm control laws. Dickerson argued this constituted double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense - which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. The court disagreed stating that while both actions were based on same alleged conduct they served different purposes: one punitive (criminal) and other remedial (civil). Therefore it did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of double jeopardy. He contended that a person should not be subjected to both criminal prosecution and civil forfeiture for the same offense, as it essentially amounts to punishing someone twice for the same crime. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that civil forfeiture is remedial rather than punitive in nature; instead, he asserted that such forfeitures are clearly intended as punishment since they involve taking away property linked to illegal activity. Therefore, according to Justice Stevens' interpretation of double jeopardy protections under Fifth Amendment law - which prohibits multiple punishments or prosecutions for a single offense - this case represented an unconstitutional application of those protections.