In the 1923 case of Chung Fook v. White, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chung Fook, a Chinese immigrant who was denied entry into the United States despite having previously lived and worked there for over two decades. The Immigration Commissioner at San Francisco had rejected his application on grounds that he could not satisfactorily prove his prior residence due to lack of documentary evidence or corroborative witnesses from white citizens. However, upon appeal, Justice Holmes delivered an opinion stating that such stringent requirements were unreasonable and unjustified under immigration laws pertaining to Chinese residents returning after temporary absence abroad (Chinese Exclusion Act). He emphasized that it is often impossible for immigrants like Chung Fook to provide such proof given their circumstances and societal prejudices against them during those times; hence other forms of credible evidence should be considered valid too. Therefore, this landmark decision established more equitable standards for proving residency in immigration cases involving non-white applicants.

In the dissenting opinion for Chung Fook v. White, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of immigration law and an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that it is not within the court's purview to question or second-guess decisions made by immigration officials unless there is clear evidence of abuse or violation of constitutional rights. In this case, he believed that no such violations had occurred and thus, the court should defer to the judgment of immigration officials who deemed Chung Fook ineligible for admission into America due to his alleged affiliation with prohibited organizations in China. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on hearsay evidence which contradicted official reports about Chung Fook’s affiliations as improper and unjustified interference with administrative discretion.