In the 1996 case United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, et al. v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review decisions made by consular officials regarding visa applications. The case arose when a group known as Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers (LAVAS) challenged a policy change by the U.S. government which resulted in denial of refugee status and visas to certain Vietnamese nationals residing in Hong Kong who had previously been approved for admission into the U.S. LAVAS argued that this was an abuse of discretion under administrative law principles and sought judicial review; however, citing what is often referred to as "consular nonreviewability" doctrine - a principle derived from prior court rulings stating that decisions made abroad by American consuls on visa matters are typically not subject to judicial scrutiny - the Supreme Court held that it did not have authority over such cases.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers argued that the majority's decision to deny judicial review was incorrect and potentially harmful. The dissent pointed out that while consular decisions are typically immune from judicial review, this immunity should not extend to cases where there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or statutory mandates. In this particular case, they believed that the government had violated its own regulations by denying visas to certain Vietnamese refugees without providing adequate reasons for doing so. They also expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing such violations to go unchecked, arguing it could set a dangerous precedent for future abuses of power by government officials.