In Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether deportation proceedings fell under the purview of "orders of deportation" or "denials of discretionary relief." The case involved an Italian immigrant who had been ordered to be deported due to criminal convictions but sought suspension of his deportation order. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied this request, leading him to appeal in federal court. However, there was a question about whether such appeals were permissible under immigration law at that time. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Foti, holding that decisions regarding suspensions indeed constituted 'final orders' subject to judicial review as per Section 106(a)of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This decision expanded immigrants' rights by allowing them access to federal courts for appealing against not just final orders for removal but also denials for discretionary relief from these orders.

In the dissenting opinion for Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, it was argued that deportation proceedings should not be classified as criminal but rather civil in nature. The dissenting justices believed that Congress intended to create a separate system of administrative justice for immigration matters when they established the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that this section does not grant appellate jurisdiction to federal courts over decisions made by BIA. Instead, they contended that such appeals should go directly from BIA to Supreme Court under certiorari review. This would maintain separation between general judicial system and specialized administrative systems while ensuring uniform application of immigration laws across all states.