In the case of United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, Commissioner of Immigration in 1932, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving immigration law and deportation proceedings. The petitioner, Mr. Stapf was an immigrant who had been living in the U.S for over seven years but was ordered to be deported due to his criminal record which included burglary and grand larceny convictions that occurred within five years after his entry into the country. He challenged this order arguing that he should not be deported because he had already served sentences for these crimes before deportation proceedings were initiated against him. The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr.Stapf's argument stating that under existing immigration laws at that time; any alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after their entry into America could be deported regardless if they have served their sentence or not. Therefore, it upheld the decision made by lower courts ordering Mr.Stapf's deportation as it found no error in applying this provision of law even though he had completed serving his sentences prior to commencement of deportation proceedings against him.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, Justice Stone argued that the court's majority decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted immigration law. He contended that the Immigration Act of 1917 did not intend to deport immigrants who had committed a crime before their arrival in America but were only discovered after they had been living in the country for several years without committing any further offenses. The justice believed this interpretation was unfair and unjustly punitive towards immigrants who have otherwise lived law-abiding lives since arriving in America, as it retroactively punished them for past crimes rather than considering their current behavior or potential contributions to society.