In the 1899 case of Ex Parte Baez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving immigration and deportation. The petitioner, Mr. Baez, was an immigrant from Cuba who had been ordered to be deported by the United States government due to his inability to support himself financially without becoming a public charge. However, he argued that this order violated his rights under international law as well as certain provisions of U.S federal law which protected immigrants from being expelled solely based on their financial status. The court rejected these arguments and upheld the deportation order against him. It held that Congress has broad powers over immigration policy and can set conditions for admission into or expulsion from the country at its discretion; it also found no violation of international law in this context since there is no universal right to enter or remain in another country without meeting its legal requirements for doing so. This decision affirmed that while immigrants have some protections under U.S laws once they are within its borders - such as access to courts - they do not necessarily enjoy all constitutional rights until they become citizens or otherwise acquire permanent resident status.

The dissenting opinion in the Ex Parte Baez case argued that the court's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that, despite being a military tribunal, it did not have jurisdiction over civilians during peacetime. They contended that Mr. Baez had been unlawfully detained and tried by a military commission while civil courts were open and functioning properly in Puerto Rico where he resided. This, they asserted, violated his constitutional rights under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which guarantees trial by jury for all crimes except cases arising in land or naval forces or militia when actually serving during times of war or public danger. Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s view on upholding martial law as an excuse for such violation even though no rebellion or invasion was happening at the time of his arrest and trial.