What is Moral Turpitude?
Moral turpitude describes wicked, deviant behavior constituting an immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from ordinary social standards such that it would shock a community. The legal concept, applied in the United States and historically in Canada until 1976, refers to an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community.
Courts have not clearly delineated the phrase, owing to amorphous, relative, and various conceptions of morality. Rather than a statutory definition, the legal community has relied on case law and court decisions to establish the moral turpitude meaning and characterize offenses under this classification. The California Supreme Court described the concept as “an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man”.
A crime involving moral turpitude has been vaguely defined as a depraved or immoral act, or a violation of the basic duties owed to fellow man, or a “reprehensible act” with a mens rea of at least recklessness. The determination requires both reprehensible conduct and some degree of scienter, whether specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness, or recklessness. Traditionally, moral turpitude involves intent to commit fraud, commit theft with intent to permanently deprive the owner, or inflict great bodily harm, as well as some reckless or malicious offenses and some offenses with lewd intent.
A crime with a mens rea of negligence or less does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the intent behind the action becomes a determining factor in classification. The designation represents a category to label a crime rather than defining the crime itself, meaning the classification can be assigned to any crime that authorities determine meets the criteria. Crimes are classified as involving moral turpitude on a case-by-case basis.
The classification carries significance across several legal areas. In legal ethics, an attorney who commits an act of moral turpitude is no longer deemed fit to practice law and may face sanctions including disbarment. The concept holds particular importance for immigration purposes, professional licensing, employment contracts, and witness impeachment proceedings.
Types of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
Crimes involving moral turpitude fall into several distinct categories established through case law and statutory interpretation. These classifications organize offenses based on the nature of the wrongdoing and the victim affected.
Crimes Against Property
Moral turpitude attaches to any crime against property involving fraud, whether against the government or an individual. The major crimes against property with evil or predatory intent likewise involve moral turpitude. This category encompasses arson, blackmail, extortion, burglary, embezzlement, robbery, theft, forgery, malicious destruction of property, and transporting stolen property. Certain property crimes require guilty knowledge or intent to permanently take property to qualify. Petty theft, grand theft, and knowingly receiving stolen goods constitute crimes involving moral turpitude in most jurisdictions. However, possessing stolen property without guilty knowledge, damaging private property where intent to damage is not required, and joyriding where permanent taking is not intended do not involve moral turpitude.
Crimes Against Governmental Authority
The presence of fraud primarily determines whether crimes against governmental authority involve moral turpitude. Bribery, counterfeiting, perjury, tax evasion (willful), mail fraud, wire fraud, and harboring a fugitive with guilty knowledge all qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude. Offenses relating to counterfeiting are generally crimes involving moral turpitude, though possession of counterfeit securities without intent does not meet the standard. Contempt of court, black market violations, breach of the peace, and tax evasion without intent to defraud fall outside this classification.
Crimes Against Person and Family
Crimes against a person involve moral turpitude when the offense contains criminal intent or recklessness, or when defined as morally reprehensible by state statute. Criminal intent or recklessness may be inferred from unjustified violence or use of a dangerous weapon. Assault qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude in several specific forms:
- Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery, or cause serious bodily harm
- Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon
Aggravated battery constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, whereas simple assault and battery generally does not. Murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, mayhem, and abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in destitution) involve moral turpitude. Family-related offenses including bigamy, paternity fraud, incest (from improper sexual relationships), and gross indecency also fall within this category.
Fraud and Theft Crimes
Fraud requires making false representations, knowledge of such falsity, reliance by the victim, intent to defraud, and the actual commission of fraud. Theft crimes involve moral turpitude only when containing the element of specific intent to steal or permanently deprive the owner of property.
How is Moral Turpitude Determined?
Federal immigration caselaw determines whether a particular offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes, not state rulings for purposes of witness impeachment or license limitations. The determination process operates on a statute-by-statute basis because each state statute covers a different range of behaviors, some of which may not necessarily involve moral turpitude under federal definitions. For offenses occurring outside the United States, the locally defined offense must be considered against U.S. definitions, with the statutory definition of the offense as defined in the appropriate country serving as the basis for immigration determinations rather than the individual’s actual circumstances.
The administrative case Matter of Silva-Trevino established a framework allowing immigration judges to conduct fact-based inquiries beyond the record of conviction in certain cases. Under Silva-Trevino, judges may take testimony from defendants, review police reports, and consider facts not required to prove an element of the offense to determine whether conduct involves moral turpitude. However, this broad factual inquiry applies only to moral turpitude determinations and cannot be used to determine if a conviction falls within other grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.
Officers examine the nature of the offense, determining whether the relevant state statute includes elements involving moral turpitude. The determination largely rests on whether the offense involves willful conduct that is morally reprehensible and intrinsically wrong, with the essence being a reckless, evil, or malicious intent. A finding of moral turpitude requires that the perpetrator committed a reprehensible act with some form of guilty knowledge.
Divisible statutes, which reach conduct that both is and is not a crime involving moral turpitude, receive particular scrutiny. When the record of conviction specifically identifies elements not involving moral turpitude, the immigration judge may not conduct a fact-based inquiry under Silva-Trevino. Offenses involving negligence or less do not qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude.
The burden falls on the immigrant to demonstrate that a crime does not involve moral turpitude when seeking relief under immigration policies. Officers may consult local USCIS counsel when questions arise regarding whether a particular offense qualifies.
Moral Turpitude and Immigration Consequences
Convictions involving moral turpitude trigger distinct immigration consequences under federal law, divided between deportability and inadmissibility grounds. The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes specific criteria determining when such convictions subject noncitizens to removal or denial of entry.
Deportability Rules
A noncitizen becomes deportable under two separate grounds. The first ground applies when a person accumulates two or more convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude at any time after admission to the United States, regardless of when the offenses occurred. These convictions must not arise from a single scheme of criminal conduct. The second ground requires one conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of the person’s last admission to the United States, provided the offense carries a potential sentence of one year or more.
The “date of admission” generally refers to when a noncitizen entered under any lawful status, even if the person subsequently fell out of lawful status or later adjusted to permanent residence. A sentence of confinement of one year or more satisfies the deportability requirement even if entirely suspended. Conversely, a single crime involving moral turpitude conviction with a maximum possible sentence of six months will not trigger deportation grounds, regardless of when committed.
Inadmissibility Rules
Noncitizens subject to inadmissibility grounds include those seeking admission at ports of entry and persons applying for various forms of relief within the United States, such as adjustment of status, U visas, T visas, and special immigrant juvenile status. A person becomes inadmissible if convicted of or formally admits committing one crime involving moral turpitude, unless qualifying for a statutory exception. Persons convicted of or admitting to two or more crimes involving moral turpitude likewise face inadmissibility.
The inadmissibility ground applies regardless of when the offense occurred, whether before or after any prior entry to the United States. Accordingly, admission of committing acts constituting essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude can trigger inadmissibility even absent a formal conviction.
Exceptions to Moral Turpitude Immigration Rules
Two statutory exceptions prevent certain crimes involving moral turpitude from triggering inadmissibility grounds, though these exceptions do not apply to deportability determinations or other immigration consequences stemming from the same conviction.
Petty Offense Exception
The petty offense exception applies when a noncitizen has committed only one crime involving moral turpitude throughout their lifetime. Three simultaneous conditions must be satisfied: the maximum penalty possible for the offense cannot exceed one year of imprisonment, the person must not have been sentenced to more than six months, and only one such offense exists in the individual’s record.
The sentence analysis examines the original term imposed by the court before any suspension occurs. A suspended sentence counts toward the six-month threshold regardless of time actually served. Specifically, a court imposing nine months imprisonment but suspending the entire term disqualifies the individual from this exception because the nine-month sentence exceeds the statutory six-month maximum. The maximum possible sentence may equal exactly one year and still qualify.
Noncitizens convicted of or admitting to two or more crimes involving moral turpitude cannot invoke the petty offense exception, even if only one qualifies as a petty offense. A person meeting all requirements is not deemed inadmissible under the crime involving moral turpitude ground for any immigration purpose.
Youthful Offender Exception
The youthful offender exception applies to convictions in adult court when the individual committed only one crime involving moral turpitude while under age 18. The offense commission and release from any resulting imprisonment must have occurred more than five years before the current immigration application. This exception addresses serious offenses tried in adult court rather than juvenile dispositions, which do not constitute convictions. No maximum sentence limitation applies under this exception.
Impact on Professional Licenses and Employment
Convictions involving moral turpitude produce significant consequences for professional licensure and employment across numerous occupations. Professional licensing boards in various states historically established crimes of moral turpitude as grounds for disciplinary action, suspension, or revocation of credentials. The classification particularly affects professionals requiring state or federal licensure, including physicians, attorneys, educators, law enforcement officers, nurses, accountants, real estate agents, and other occupations demanding high ethical standards.
State bar associations commonly designate such offenses as professional misconduct, with the South Carolina Bar explicitly incorporating this standard under Rule 8.4. Conviction can result in license suspension, complete revocation, employment dismissal, or substantial difficulty securing future positions. Professional boards may suspend licenses even when convictions result from deferred adjudication rather than final judgment. The consequences extend beyond license status to encompass damaged professional credibility and ongoing financial hardship.
Employment agreements and consulting contracts routinely include moral turpitude convictions among grounds for termination with cause. In California, including Los Angeles, moral turpitude can also affect professional licensing, employment, and immigration-related matters, depending on the circumstances. Recent legislative reforms in multiple states have eliminated moral turpitude language from licensing statutes. Pennsylvania enacted Act 53 in 2020, prohibiting licensing boards from denying credentials based on considerations of moral turpitude, instead requiring identification of offenses directly related to occupational duties. North Carolina implemented similar reforms in 2019, barring automatic denials and requiring convictions be directly related to professional responsibilities.