The U.S. Supreme Court case Jay v. Boyd in 1955 revolved around an immigrant's right to remain in the country despite being subject to deportation due to past criminal activity. The plaintiff, Jay, was a legal permanent resident who had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and thus faced deportation under immigration law at that time. He applied for discretionary relief from deportation under Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 which allowed for such relief if it would result in "serious economic detriment" to his citizen family members. However, this application was denied by the District Director of Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), Boyd. Jay appealed this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court arguing that he should have been granted a full hearing on his application and that INS' refusal violated his rights under due process clause of Fifth Amendment as well as Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court ruled against him stating that discretion given by Congress to Attorney General regarding suspension applications did not require full hearings or findings based on evidence presented during those proceedings; hence no violation occurred either constitutionally or statutorily.

In the dissenting opinion for Jay v. Boyd, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of discretionary power granted to immigration officials under Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act. He argued that this section did not give unlimited discretion to these officials but rather was intended by Congress to provide relief from deportation in cases where it would cause undue hardship due to factors such as family ties or long residence in the United States. The justice contended that a decision on suspension should be based on an evaluation of all relevant circumstances and facts presented by an alien seeking relief, including his character and record while residing in America. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential misuse of this broad discretionary authority without proper judicial review mechanisms.