Did you read the decision? It was Gorsuch and Ginsburg.
RBG wrote a dissenting opinion pretty much blasting the dual sovereign notion specifically, that just because an offense is defined by law from two sovereigns doesn't change the fact that it is the same offense under the laws of the UNITED STATES as a whole. States are distinct entities from the country in general. Gorsuch's opinion invokes biblical themes in it's opening but comes around to the same results. That the state and federal soverignity overlap enough to make the twice put in jeopardy to be a violation of the Constitution.
I tend to agree with the minority. The major use in the past was to allow the treatment of drastic civil rights violations by the states, where the states declined to convict civil rights violators (notably those who would murder memebers of minority groups). However, in this case, it's pretty much the case as both the minority decisions put it, a clear abuse of the federal authority to "multiply" the sentence of something they weren't happy with the outcome.
In the civil rights cases, one can argue that while it stems from the same event, the laws were different. In this case, they were pretty much identical, just the feds using their statute as a "second chance" to pile on additional sentence to the accused.

