In the 1928 case of Karnuth, Director of Immigration, et al. v. United States ex rel. Albro, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Canadian-born woman who had married an American citizen and lived in the United States for several years could be deported under immigration laws at that time due to her husband's death before she completed naturalization proceedings. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Albro, stating that she should not be considered an alien subject to deportation because her marriage conferred upon her derivative citizenship status even though it wasn't formalized through naturalization procedures prior to her husband's death.

In the dissenting opinion for Karnuth, Director of Immigration, et al. v. United States ex rel. Albro (1928), Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to allow a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect because it overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries and interfered with executive power in immigration matters. He contended that Congress had given discretionary authority to immigration officials to determine whether an immigrant posed a risk due to mental illness or defect, and this discretion should not be second-guessed by courts unless there is clear evidence of abuse or misapplication of law. In his view, the court's intervention undermined administrative expertise and disrupted the balance between judicial review and executive action in immigration policy.