In Thompson v. City of Louisville et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who had been convicted for loitering and disorderly conduct without any substantial evidence to support these charges. The petitioner, Thompson, was arrested while waiting at a pool hall for his friends and subsequently charged with both crimes by local authorities in Louisville, Kentucky. He appealed on the grounds that there was no evidence presented at trial to prove he committed either offense; therefore, his conviction violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with Thompson's argument unanimously (9-0), stating that it is unconstitutional to convict someone based solely on suspicion or conjecture rather than concrete proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This landmark decision reinforced the principle that everyone is entitled to fair treatment within America's legal system regardless of their circumstances or background.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. City of Louisville, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority had overstepped its jurisdiction by reviewing a case from a state court on grounds of insufficient evidence. He contended that it was not within the Supreme Court's purview to reevaluate factual determinations made by lower courts unless there was an egregious violation of due process or other constitutional rights. In this particular case, he believed no such violation occurred and thus disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Thompson’s conviction based on their own assessment of evidentiary sufficiency. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could routinely second-guess state court judgments in criminal cases simply because they disagreed with how those courts interpreted or weighed evidence presented at trial.