In Whalen v. United States (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the issue of double jeopardy, which is being tried twice for the same crime. Richard J. Whalen was convicted and sentenced separately for both rape and felony murder during a single trial in Washington D.C., with each charge carrying its own sentence to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. He appealed his conviction arguing that this constituted double jeopardy as he was essentially being punished twice for one act - causing death while committing rape. The Supreme Court disagreed with Whalen's argument, ruling 7-2 that separate punishments did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because Congress intended to authorize cumulative punishments for these two crimes committed in a single act or transaction under District of Columbia law. However, it also held that if there were any ambiguity about whether Congress intended multiple punishments under different statutes based on one act, courts should presume against such intent unless clearly expressed by legislature – setting an important precedent known as "the rule of lenity".

In the dissenting opinion for Whalen v. United States, Justice Stewart disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the double jeopardy clause. He argued that Congress did not intend to punish separately for rape and felony murder when it enacted statutes defining those crimes. Instead, he believed that Congress intended to define a single offense - killing in the course of committing another crime - which could be proven by evidence of either rape or some other felony. Therefore, according to Justice Stewart’s view, punishing Whalen separately for both rape and felony murder violated his protection against double jeopardy because it punished him twice for essentially one criminal act.