In the case of Ware v. Allen, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court could order a defendant to pay restitution to a victim of a crime. The case arose when the defendant, Allen, was convicted of a crime in a state court and the court ordered him to pay restitution to the victim, Ware. Allen appealed the decision, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to order him to pay restitution. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to order Allen to pay restitution to Ware. The Court reasoned that the state court had the power to impose a sentence that was “just and reasonable” and that restitution was a form of punishment that could be imposed in order to achieve that goal. The Court also noted that restitution was a common form of punishment in many states and that it was a legitimate way to ensure that victims of crime were compensated for their losses. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to order Allen to pay restitution to Ware. The Court reasoned that restitution was a legitimate form of punishment and that it was a just and reasonable way to ensure that victims of crime were compensated for their losses.

In the dissenting opinion of Ware v. Allen, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an incorrect application of law. He noted that in previous cases, courts had held that when a defendant is convicted under two separate statutes for one act or transaction, only one conviction can stand; however, in this case the court allowed both convictions to remain despite them being based on "the same conduct." Furthermore, he argued that because there were no aggravating circumstances present which would have warranted multiple punishments for the same crime - such as if it had been committed with different weapons or against different victims - then allowing both convictions to stand violated double jeopardy principles. In conclusion Justice Scalia stated his belief that by upholding both convictions simultaneously without any evidence of additional criminal activity beyond what was already charged and punished for constituted an unconstitutional violation of double jeopardy rights.