In Dessalernos v. Savoretti, the Supreme Court dealt with an immigration case involving a Cuban national who had been ordered to be deported from the United States due to his involvement in drug trafficking. The petitioner argued that he could not be sent back to Cuba because of political conditions there and sought relief under Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which prohibits deportation if it would subject someone to physical persecution. However, this provision was interpreted by the court as only applying when persecution is likely on account of race, religion or political opinion - not for fear of punishment for criminal activities committed in another country. Therefore, despite acknowledging potential danger upon return due to his past actions against Batista's regime before Castro took power, they ruled that he did not qualify for protection under U.S law since his fears were related more towards retribution than political persecution.

In the dissenting opinion for Dessalernos v. Savoretti, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold deportation orders against two Cuban nationals who had entered the U.S. illegally contradicted previous court rulings and violated principles of international law. The dissenting justices contended that these individuals should have been considered refugees due to their fear of political persecution in Cuba, which would make them eligible for asylum under U.S. immigration laws at that time. They also criticized the majority's interpretation of a provision in an immigration statute as overly narrow and contrary to its intended purpose, which they believed was meant to protect those fleeing from oppressive regimes rather than facilitate their removal from the country.