In the case of Domenico Dumbrav. United States, 1924, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a person who was previously deported from the country could not be re-admitted under a different name and then claim immunity from deportation on grounds of double jeopardy. The petitioner, Domenico Dumbrav had been deported once for being involved in activities related to prostitution but later returned to America using an alias. When his true identity was discovered, he argued that deporting him again would constitute double jeopardy - being punished twice for the same crime - which is prohibited by Fifth Amendment rights. However, the court held that each entry into America constituted a separate act and therefore did not violate any constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Domenico Dumra et al. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search and seizure was in violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that law enforcement officers should not be allowed to conduct such invasive actions without first obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate based on probable cause. According to him, this requirement is fundamental in protecting citizens' privacy rights and ensuring government accountability. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an exception for border searches as irrelevant because it did not apply to this case where there were no borders involved or any suspicion of smuggling activities taking place at international boundaries.