In the 1940 case Ex Parte Cleio Hull, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus for an alien who was held by immigration authorities pending deportation. The petitioner, Cleio Hull, was ordered to be deported after being convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. She sought relief from her deportation order through a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court arguing that she had been denied due process because one of her convictions did not involve moral turpitude and therefore she should not have been subject to deportation under existing law. However, the Supreme Court held that since there were administrative remedies still available to Hull within the Department of Labor (the agency then responsible for immigration matters), it would be inappropriate for judicial intervention at this stage.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Cleio Hull, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a violation of due process. He contended that it was unconstitutional to deny an individual their right to challenge a deportation order in court before being deported. According to him, this denial effectively stripped individuals of their constitutional rights and protections without any form of judicial review or oversight. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential abuse of power by administrative agencies if they were allowed unchecked authority over such serious matters as deportation. In his view, allowing these agencies such broad powers could lead to arbitrary and unjust decisions with severe consequences for those affected.