In the case of Williams v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Oklahoma, upholding a death sentence for a defendant who had been previously tried and convicted on related charges in another state. The petitioner, John Edward Williams Jr., was initially charged with kidnapping and murder in Kansas where he received life imprisonment for kidnapping but wasn't tried for murder due to lack of jurisdiction as the crime occurred in Oklahoma. Later, he was extradited to Oklahoma where he faced trial again - this time specifically for murder based on facts already established during his previous trial which resulted into him being sentenced to death. Williams argued that this constituted double jeopardy – being prosecuted twice for essentially the same offense – which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment; however, the court disagreed stating that each state has its own sovereignty thus can prosecute crimes committed within their borders separately even if they are connected or overlapping with those prosecuted elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams v. Oklahoma, Justice Hugo Black argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated because he was not given a fair trial. He believed that the same evidence used to convict him in his first trial should not have been used again in his second trial for a different crime related to the same event. This, according to Justice Black, constituted double jeopardy and violated due process of law under both state and federal constitutions. Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair for Williams' sentence to be determined by information from an unrelated case where he had no opportunity to defend himself against those allegations. The majority decision upheld this practice as permissible within states’ rights; however, Justice Black disagreed with this interpretation of federalism principles and maintained that individual liberties should take precedence over states’ powers.