In the United States v. Ward case of 1979, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a civil penalty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) was punitive in nature and thus subject to protections provided by the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The defendant, L.O. Ward Oil & Gas Operations, faced both criminal charges and civil penalties for violating pollution control standards set by FWPCA. The court ruled that while some aspects of FWPCA’s sanctions were indeed punitive, they did not constitute "punishment" in terms of double jeopardy law because their primary purpose was remedial rather than retributive or deterrent - aiming at reimbursing government costs associated with pollution control rather than punishing offenders per se. Therefore, it held that imposing these sanctions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause even if they followed criminal prosecution for same offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ward, it was argued that the Clean Water Act's civil penalty provision should be considered punitive rather than remedial. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation would require a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. They contended that by labeling these penalties as "civil" instead of "criminal," Congress could not circumvent constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants such as right to a jury trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they noted that while some aspects of Clean Water Act penalties might serve remedial purposes like deterrence or compensation for damages, their primary purpose appeared punitive due to their severity and potential for financial ruin which is characteristic of traditional forms punishment in criminal law.