In the case of Arciniega v. Freeman, 1971, the petitioner, Arciniega was a Mexican citizen who had been deported from the United States several times for illegal entry. He was arrested again in Texas and charged with felony under federal law for reentering after deportation without permission from the Attorney General. The District Court denied his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds and he pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal on those same grounds. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Arciniega then petitioned for certiorari (a request that a higher court review a lower court's decision), arguing that his prosecution violated due process because it did not allow him to challenge whether or not his prior deportations were lawful - an argument rejected by both lower courts. The Supreme Court dismissed this claim as meritless since there is no constitutional requirement that such collateral attacks be permitted at every stage of proceedings against an alien unlawfully in this country.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Arciniega v. Freeman argued that the petitioner, a Mexican citizen who was arrested and detained by U.S. authorities for illegal entry into the United States, should have been granted his request for habeas corpus relief. The dissenting justices believed that Arciniega's detention without trial violated his constitutional rights to due process under law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. They contended that even though he was not a U.S citizen, he still had certain basic human rights which must be respected and protected while on American soil. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view about discretionary power given to immigration officials arguing it could lead to potential abuse or misuse of authority if left unchecked.