Jordan v. De George

Background

The case concerns an Italian-born man who entered the United States in 1921 and lived here for decades. He pleaded guilty in 1937 to conspiring to possess and sell untaxed whiskey and was sentenced to one year and one day. He was convicted again in 1941 of conspiring to defraud the United States of taxes on distilled spirits and sentenced to two years. While serving the second sentence, immigration officials began deportation proceedings and the Board ordered deportation in 1946; courts below disagreed until this Court reviewed the matter.

Reasoning

The central question was whether conspiring to defraud the Government by evading liquor taxes counts as a "crime involving moral turpitude" under the Immigration Act of 1917, which triggers deportation after two qualifying convictions and sentences. The Court looked to many prior federal and state decisions and concluded that fraud has consistently been treated as involving moral turpitude. The majority rejected a claim that the phrase is unconstitutionally vague here, noting the long history of the phrase in immigration and other laws and past decisions treating fraud as morally blameworthy.

Real world impact

Because the Court found tax‑evasion conspiracy to involve moral turpitude, an immigrant with two such convictions and the required sentences may be deported. The decision resolves a split among appellate courts and means immigration officials can use repeated fraud convictions to seek removal of noncitizens.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing the term "moral turpitude" is too vague to support deportation and that deportation is a severe, almost permanent penalty that requires clearer congressional standards.