WASHINGTON — In an extended argument on Thursday that touched on history, the role of precedent and fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court considered whether it should overrule a series of decisions that sometimes allowed criminal defendants to be prosecuted twice for the same crimes.

There did not seem to be a majority ready to make that move.

The Constitution’s double jeopardy clause generally forbids subsequent prosecutions. But the Supreme Court has made one exception. Saying that the federal government and the states are independent sovereigns, the court has allowed separate prosecutions of the same conduct in state and federal courts.

The case before the justices has attracted attention because the court’s decision could have implications for the legal problems faced by associates of President Trump. Should he pardon them for federal crimes, a Supreme Court ruling that alters the definition of double jeopardy could complicate efforts by state prosecutors to pursue parallel charges.

But the justices gave no indications on Thursday that they were focused on such issues. Instead, they debated the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”