In the case of Philippides v. Day, Commissioner of Immigration in 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an immigration matter involving a Greek national named George Philippides. The petitioner had been living in America for over seven years but was ordered to be deported after being convicted and sentenced for a crime involving moral turpitude (a legal concept referring to conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals). He argued that he should not be deported because his wife and children were American citizens. However, the court held that under existing immigration laws at the time, marriage to an American citizen did not exempt him from deportation if he committed such crimes within five years after entry into United States. Furthermore, it was also noted by Justice Holmes who delivered the opinion of court that even though his family would suffer hardship due to his deportation; this could not alter what Congress has plainly mandated through legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Philippides v. Day, it was argued that the petitioner should not be deported based on his past criminal conviction because he had already served his sentence and paid his debt to society. The justice believed that deportation in this case would essentially amount to double jeopardy, punishing him twice for the same crime. Furthermore, they contended that deporting Philippides would also violate principles of fairness and proportionality since he had lived in America most of his life and had family ties there. They expressed concern about using immigration law as a tool for additional punishment rather than its intended purpose - regulating entry into the country.