In the United States v. Oppenheimer et al., 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants who were charged with conspiracy to defraud the government by manipulating customs duties. The court held that a previous acquittal on charges related to this scheme barred subsequent prosecution for conspiracy based on the same facts under principles of double jeopardy. This case is significant as it established an important precedent regarding double jeopardy and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), which prevents an issue from being relitigated once it has been resolved in a prior proceeding.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Oppenheimer et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that dismissed an indictment against Oppenheimer on grounds of double jeopardy. He argued that the first trial, which resulted in dismissal due to insufficient evidence, did not constitute "jeopardy" as defined by legal standards and thus should not prevent a second trial from proceeding. According to him, jeopardy only applies when there is risk of conviction; since no such risk existed in the initial proceedings due to lack of evidence, he believed it was incorrect for this case to be considered one of double jeopardy. Furthermore, he contended that dismissing an indictment based on insufficiency does not equate acquittal or determination of guilt or innocence but merely indicates procedural inadequacy - something correctable through retrial rather than protected under Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy.