In Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1963), the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a resident alien could be deported for committing a crime of moral turpitude, even if he had not been sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer. The petitioner, Mr. Thompson, was convicted in 1956 under California law for issuing checks without sufficient funds - an offense considered as involving moral turpitude under immigration laws. However, his sentence did not involve any term of imprisonment but only probation and fine payment. The court ruled that deportation provisions applied regardless of the length or nature of the sentence imposed upon conviction; it is enough that the crime committed falls within those classified as crimes involving moral turpitude by immigration laws. Thus, despite Mr.Thompson's argument that his punishment didn't meet certain criteria specified in Section 241(a)(4) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which stipulates grounds for deportability based on criminal convictions with sentences up to one year or more, he was still subject to deportation due its classification as a crime involving moral turpitude.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1963, it was argued that the majority's decision to deport a long-time resident based on a minor criminal offense committed years ago was excessively harsh and unjust. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling failed to consider the individual circumstances of each case, including factors such as rehabilitation or family ties in America. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of discretion by immigration officials who might use this broad power to target certain groups unfairly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of "moral turpitude" used by the majority to justify deportation for any crime involving dishonesty or false statement regardless of its severity or context.