In the 1965 case of Soric v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with an appeal from a Romanian immigrant named John Soric who was facing deportation due to his past membership in Romania's Communist Party. The court had to determine whether or not this affiliation constituted "membership" as defined by American immigration law, which would make him ineligible for citizenship and subject to deportation. In its decision, the court ruled against Mr. Soric stating that he did indeed qualify as a member of the communist party under US law despite his claims that he was forced into joining it during World War II when Romania was occupied by Soviet forces. His argument about being coerced into membership didn't sway the court because they found no evidence supporting his claim of coercion nor any indication that he ever tried to withdraw from said party once free from Soviet influence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Soric v. Immigration and Naturalization Service argued that the majority's decision was too narrow in its interpretation of what constitutes "good moral character" for purposes of naturalization. The dissenting justices believed that a more holistic approach should be taken when evaluating an individual's eligibility for citizenship, rather than focusing solely on specific acts or behaviors. They contended that Mr. Soric had demonstrated good moral character through his actions over many years, despite having made false statements during his immigration proceedings out of fear stemming from past political persecution. The dissenters were concerned about setting a precedent where minor transgressions could potentially disqualify individuals who are otherwise deserving of citizenship.