In the case of Brownell, Attorney General, v. Tom We Shung in 1956, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an alien facing deportation has a right to see all relevant information regarding his or her case. The court held that due process requires full disclosure of such information unless there is a compelling reason for secrecy. This decision came after Tom We Shung was ordered deported based on confidential information he was not allowed to see or challenge. He argued this violated his Fifth Amendment rights and appealed up to the Supreme Court which agreed with him unanimously.

In the dissenting opinion for Brownell v. Tom We Shung, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was a departure from established principles of judicial restraint. He contended that it was not within the Court's jurisdiction to decide on matters related to immigration policy and enforcement, which were under the purview of Congress and executive agencies. Furthermore, he believed that granting such relief could potentially lead to an influx of similar cases before federal courts, thereby overburdening them with issues better left in administrative hands. Additionally, he expressed concern about potential national security implications if courts interfered too much in immigration decisions made by government officials who had access to sensitive information unavailable to judges.