In the 1956 case of Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an immigration matter involving a Colombian national named Carlos Ceballos y Arboleda. Mr. Ceballos had entered the United States as a non-immigrant student but later applied for permanent residency under Section 4(e) of the Immigration Act which allowed certain aliens to adjust their status if they were "of good moral character". The application was denied by immigration authorities due to his past membership in communist organizations - considered evidence of bad moral character under existing laws at that time. On appeal, however, it was found that he had not been given adequate opportunity to rebut this presumption during his hearing before an immigration special inquiry officer. The Supreme Court held that while membership in such organizations could be used as prima facie evidence against one's good moral character claim; it did not automatically disqualify someone from eligibility for citizenship or residency adjustment without giving them fair chance to present counter-evidence or arguments about their personal conduct and beliefs.

In the dissenting opinion for Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and respect the petitioner's constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Ceballos should have been granted a hearing before being deported, as they saw this as an essential due process right under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. They contended that even though he had entered illegally into United States territory, his subsequent marriage to a U.S citizen and birth of their child in America gave him certain legal protections which were not properly acknowledged by immigration authorities or by the court’s majority ruling. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power within immigration enforcement if such actions went unchecked by judicial review.