In the 1903 case of Ah How Alias Louie Ah How v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to immigration law and due process rights. The appellant, a Chinese immigrant named Ah How, was ordered deported under provisions of the Geary Act after he failed to provide required documentation proving his legal residency in America. He appealed this decision arguing that it violated his right to due process as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because he had not been given sufficient opportunity to produce witnesses in his defense during deportation proceedings. The Supreme Court disagreed with Ah How's argument and upheld his deportation order stating that while non-citizens are entitled to constitutional protections including due process rights when they are within U.S territory; however, these protections do not extend so far as requiring government officials conducting administrative procedures such as immigration hearings must delay their decisions indefinitely until potential witnesses can be located or produced for testimony.

In the dissenting opinion for AH HOW ALIAS LOUIE AH HOW v. UNITED STATES, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Ah How's conviction under a law that made it illegal for Chinese laborers to be in the U.S. without certification of their right to remain. He argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights by presuming guilt until innocence could be proven, reversing traditional legal principles. Furthermore, he contended that such laws were discriminatory and unfairly targeted Chinese immigrants while exempting other nationalities from similar restrictions or penalties. This selective enforcement of immigration laws based on race or nationality was seen by Justice Harlan as contrary to American ideals of justice and equality before the law.