In Marakar v. United States, 1961, the petitioner was a non-resident alien who had been convicted of violating U.S. narcotics laws and sentenced to imprisonment for five years followed by deportation. The Supreme Court considered whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applied to his case. The petitioner argued that his sentence was excessive because it included both incarceration and deportation - effectively constituting double punishment for a single offense. The court rejected this argument, ruling that deportation is not a criminal sanction but an administrative action taken in the interests of national sovereignty and public welfare; therefore, it does not constitute "punishment" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Furthermore, even if it were considered as such, combining imprisonment with subsequent deportation would still be within constitutional limits given that each component separately falls under accepted legal penalties. This decision reaffirmed previous rulings stating that immigration matters are largely at Congress' discretion due to its plenary power over foreign affairs; thus courts should defer to legislative judgments unless they clearly violate constitutional rights or principles.

The dissenting opinion in Marakar v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold the conviction was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Marakar had knowingly and intentionally violated U.S. immigration laws, as required for conviction under those statutes. They also raised concerns about procedural errors during trial, including improper jury instructions which may have prejudiced the defendant's rights to fair trial. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for expanding federal criminal jurisdiction into areas traditionally reserved for state law enforcement without clear Congressional mandate or constitutional justification - a move they saw as threatening individual liberties and undermining principles of federalism.