The U.S. Supreme Court case Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., in 1991 revolved around a regulation by the INS that allowed it to impose conditions on the release of aliens who had been apprehended within the United States after unlawful entry. The condition specifically under scrutiny was one which prohibited such aliens from taking employment while their deportation proceedings were pending unless they could demonstrate "compelling reasons" for working. The National Center for Immigrants' Rights challenged this rule, arguing that it exceeded the authority granted to INS by Congress and violated due process rights of immigrants because it effectively punished them before their guilt or innocence could be determined in court. However, the Supreme Court upheld this regulation with a 5-4 decision stating that these restrictions did not constitute punishment but rather served as an effective means of ensuring appearance at deportation hearings since many illegal entrants come to find work. This ruling affirmed federal government's broad powers over immigration matters and its ability to place certain restrictions on undocumented immigrants even if those may seem punitive in nature.

In the dissenting opinion for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. National Center for Immigrants' Rights, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a regulation allowing the INS to impose work restrictions on immigrants awaiting deportation hearings infringed upon their rights. The dissenting justices believed that this rule was not authorized by Congress and violated due process protections under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. They contended that such a restriction could have severe consequences, including forcing individuals into poverty or making them dependent on public assistance while they awaited their hearings. Moreover, they pointed out that many of these people might ultimately be found eligible to remain in America legally; thus, imposing such harsh conditions during an interim period seemed unjustified.