In the 1891 case of Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, a Japanese woman named Nishimura Ekiu arrived in San Francisco and was denied entry into the country by immigration officials who deemed her likely to become a public charge due to lack of funds or an established destination. She filed for habeas corpus, arguing that she had been unlawfully detained and that her exclusion violated her rights under international law and treaties between Japan and the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled against Ekiu, upholding broad federal power over immigration policy. It held that Congress has "plenary power" (complete authority) to make rules for admission of aliens; its decisions are subject only to constitutional limitations. Furthermore, it stated that decisions made by administrative officers regarding whether immigrants should be allowed entry based on such laws were final unless manifestly beyond their grant of authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the power to regulate immigration should not be absolute and without judicial review. He contended that while Congress has broad powers to establish rules for immigrants' admission into the country, these rules must still respect basic principles of justice and due process. In this case, he believed Mrs. Ekiu was denied her right to a fair hearing when she was refused entry based on an inspector's decision without any opportunity for appeal or review by a court of law. This unilateral determination violated her rights under both international law and U.S constitutional guarantees of due process according to him.