In the Wade v. Hunter case of 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy if "manifest necessity" warrants it. The petitioner, William Wade was court-martialed for murder in Germany by American military authorities after World War II but his trial was halted due to tactical military considerations and he was later recharged with the same crime. He claimed this violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense. However, Justice Hugo Black writing for majority held that while generally successive prosecutions are prohibited under Double Jeopardy Clause, there is an exception when termination of original proceedings occurred because continuation would have been impossible or contrary to defined principles of justice.

In the dissenting opinion for Wade v. Hunter, Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's ruling that a retrial did not violate double jeopardy protections. He argued that the military tribunal had jurisdiction over Wade and should have been allowed to proceed without interruption. The decision to halt proceedings was made by an officer who was not part of the court-martial panel, which he believed undermined its independence and authority. Furthermore, he contended that there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying halting proceedings as required under military law at the time; instead it seemed more like a strategic move on behalf of prosecution due to their unpreparedness or dissatisfaction with how trial was proceeding so far - something which shouldn't be rewarded or encouraged in his view.