In the case of United States v. Morena (1917), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to immigration law and naturalization. The defendant, Morena, was an immigrant who had been residing in the United States for more than five years but had not yet completed his naturalization process when he left for a brief visit to Mexico. Upon return, he was denied entry into the country on grounds that he hadn't declared his intention to become a citizen before leaving as required by law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Morena stating that although it is generally necessary for immigrants seeking citizenship to declare their intentions within a certain timeframe after arrival, this requirement does not apply if they have already established residence and are merely returning from temporary absence abroad.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Morena case argued that the defendant should not be held liable for conspiracy to defraud the government by smuggling sugar into Mexico, as there was no evidence of an agreement between him and other parties involved in this illegal activity. The dissenting justices believed that mere knowledge or approval of a crime does not constitute participation in it unless there is clear proof of cooperation or active assistance. They also pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions within testimonies used against Morena, which they felt undermined their credibility and reliability. Furthermore, they questioned whether his actions indeed caused any financial loss to the U.S., given that he paid all required duties on imported goods before exporting them again at higher prices due to wartime scarcity.