Thompson v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found until after the statute of limitations had expired. The case involved a man named Thompson who was indicted for a crime that had occurred more than three years prior. The indictment was found after the statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that Thompson could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was intended to protect individuals from being prosecuted for crimes that occurred long ago and that the statute of limitations did not apply to the finding of the indictment. The Court noted that the statute of limitations was intended to protect individuals from being prosecuted for crimes that occurred long ago and that the statute of limitations did not apply to the finding of the indictment. The Court also noted that the statute of limitations was not intended to be a shield for those who had committed a crime and that the indictment was valid even though it was found after the statute of limitations had expired. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that Thompson could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the statute of limitations was intended to protect individuals from being prosecuted for crimes that occurred long ago and that the statute of limitations did not apply to the finding of the indictment. The Court also noted that the statute of limitations was not intended to be a shield for those who had committed a crime and that the indictment was valid even though it was found after the statute of limitations had expired.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thompson v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the forfeiture of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an infringement on fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, as it allowed for citizens to be deprived of their property without any opportunity to defend themselves or challenge the government's actions. Furthermore, he noted that such laws could easily be abused by those in power and used as a means to oppress individuals who are unable or unwilling to fight back against them. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while there may have been some valid reasons behind passing such legislation at one point in time, they were outweighed by its potential abuse and should not be upheld under current circumstances.