In the 1953 U.S. Supreme Court case Barber v. Gonzales, the court ruled in favor of an immigrant who had been ordered to be deported due to a technicality in his immigration paperwork. The plaintiff, Mr. Gonzales, was a Mexican citizen who had legally entered the United States but later left and reentered illegally after being unable to renew his visa while visiting Mexico for less than three days. Upon returning, he was apprehended by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials and ordered deported on grounds that he failed to possess valid entry documents at time of reentry as required by law. The Supreme Court held that since Mr.Gonzales' departure from US soil was brief, innocent and inadvertent - it should not have triggered deportation proceedings under existing immigration laws which were intended for more serious violations such as smuggling or illegal entry into the country without inspection by an immigration officer. This ruling set important precedent regarding interpretation of "entry" within context of U.S.immigration law; emphasizing substance over formality when considering whether someone has made an 'entry' into United States sufficient enough to trigger potential deportation consequences.

In the dissenting opinion for Barber v. Gonzales, Justice Clark argued that the majority's interpretation of immigration law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress intended to exclude only those who had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or a violation related to narcotics, not all individuals with criminal records as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, he asserted that this misinterpretation could lead to unjust deportations based on minor offenses unrelated to moral turpitude or drugs. The justice also criticized the court's decision for potentially causing unnecessary hardship and separation of families due to its broad application. In his view, it is essential in interpreting laws like these not just from their literal meaning but also considering their purpose and intent behind them which according to him was being overlooked by other justices in this case.