In the 1913 case of Itow and Fushimi v. United States, two Japanese immigrants challenged their deportation orders issued by U.S immigration authorities. The Supreme Court ruled against them, upholding the constitutionality of a law that allowed for the deportation of non-citizens who had been convicted of crimes involving "moral turpitude." This was based on an interpretation that such individuals were not desirable members of society and could be removed from it. Both Itow and Fushimi had been convicted in California courts for selling liquor without a license - a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude under existing laws at that time. They argued unsuccessfully that this classification was arbitrary and violated their rights to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court's decision reinforced federal authority over immigration matters while also highlighting ongoing debates about immigrant assimilation, criminality, and national identity.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Itow and Fushimi v. United States argued that the defendants, who were Japanese immigrants, should not have been convicted under a law prohibiting non-citizens from fishing in U.S. waters because they had obtained licenses to do so. The dissenting justices believed that by issuing these licenses, the government had implicitly given permission for them to fish and therefore could not later prosecute them for doing so. They also pointed out inconsistencies between different sections of the relevant laws which made it unclear whether or not they applied to foreigners who had been granted fishing licenses. Furthermore, they felt that if Congress intended to prohibit licensed foreign fishermen from operating in U.S waters entirely, it would have stated this explicitly rather than leaving it open to interpretation through conflicting statutes.