In the 1915 case of Gegiow v. Uhl, the United States Supreme Court ruled on an immigration issue involving a Russian immigrant named Alexander Gegiow. The Acting Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York had denied entry to Gegiow based on Section 20 of the Immigration Act, which stated that immigrants could be excluded if they were likely to become public charges (dependent on government assistance). However, this decision was made solely because there was high unemployment in Portland, Oregon where he intended to reside and work as a jeweler. The Supreme Court unanimously held that potential employment conditions in one specific city should not determine whether an individual would become a public charge under federal law. Therefore, it reversed his exclusion order stating that such decisions must consider more than just local economic conditions in one city but rather look into personal circumstances like health condition or criminal record etc., thereby setting precedent for future immigration cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Gegiow v. Uhl, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn immigration officials' denial of entry to an immigrant based on their interpretation of a law that excluded individuals likely to become public charges. He argued that courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless there is clear evidence of an error or abuse of discretion. In this case, he believed no such error was evident and thus saw no reason for judicial intervention. Furthermore, he contended that the determination whether someone might become a public charge was complex and required consideration of various factors including potential employment opportunities which could change rapidly depending on local conditions - something best left to those with expertise in these matters rather than judges.