In the 1996 case of In re Maria Luisa Costell Gaydos, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a foreign national could be deported from the United States after being convicted of a crime that was not considered an aggravated felony at the time of conviction but later classified as such by Congress. Maria Luisa Costell Gaydos, a native and citizen of Spain who had been living in America since she was five years old, pleaded guilty to embezzlement charges in 1987. At that time, her offense did not qualify for deportation under immigration law. However, subsequent changes made by Congress expanded what constituted an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes to include crimes like hers. The court ruled against Gaydos stating that despite these changes occurring post-conviction and sentencing; they were applicable because they were enacted before her deportation proceedings began. The ruling emphasized on Congressional intent behind changing definitions - which aimed at broadening categories of deportable offenses rather than reducing them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Maria Luisa Costell Gaydos disagreed with the majority's interpretation of immigration law. The dissent argued that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had erred in its decision to deny Ms. Gaydos' application for suspension of deportation, asserting that it failed to properly consider all relevant factors and evidence presented by Ms. Gaydos regarding her claim of extreme hardship if deported back to Spain. They contended that BIA did not give due weightage to her deep ties with America, including a U.S citizen child and husband suffering from serious health issues, which would cause significant emotional distress upon separation or force them into an unfamiliar country without adequate medical facilities for his condition. Furthermore, they criticized BIA’s narrow focus on economic detriment while ignoring other potential hardships like psychological impact or cultural adjustment difficulties as part of 'extreme hardship'. Therefore, they believed this case should be remanded back to BIA for reconsideration under proper legal standards.