In the United States v. Moreland case of 1921, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a sentence of hard labor was constitutionally different from imprisonment. The defendant, Moreland, had been convicted for embezzlement and sentenced to two years' hard labor in a federal penitentiary. He appealed his sentence arguing that it violated the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because he would have received only imprisonment if tried in state court rather than federal court. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that there is no constitutional difference between sentences of imprisonment versus hard labor as both are forms of punishment recognized at common law when the Eighth Amendment was adopted prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Moreland, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing both imprisonment and hard labor as punishment for the same crime was unconstitutional. He contended that this constituted double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. According to him, hard labor should be considered a separate penalty from imprisonment because it adds an additional level of severity and hardship beyond simple confinement. Therefore, imposing both punishments simultaneously would violate a defendant's rights by subjecting them to two penalties for one offense. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues' interpretation of "infamous crimes," asserting they were expanding its definition too broadly in order to justify their ruling.