In the case of Landon, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Plasencia in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a lawful permanent resident returning to the United States after a brief trip abroad could be considered an "arriving alien" subject to exclusion proceedings under immigration law. The respondent, Mrs. Plasencia was stopped at the border upon her return from Mexico due to suspicion of smuggling aliens into America. She argued that she should have been admitted as a returning resident rather than being treated as an arriving alien seeking entry for which she had no constitutional rights against expulsion without hearing or judicial review. The court held that while lawful permanent residents do have certain constitutional protections when they seek reentry into America after temporary absences abroad, these rights are not absolute and can be balanced against legitimate government interests such as national security or immigration control. Therefore, Mrs. Plasencia's detention and subsequent exclusion proceedings were deemed legal by majority decision (6-3), with Justice Thurgood Marshall dissenting on grounds that it violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Landon v. Plasencia, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to grant a resident alien returning from a brief trip abroad the same constitutional rights as those living continuously within U.S. borders was misguided and without precedent. He contended that this ruling would create unnecessary complications in immigration law enforcement by requiring full-scale hearings for every returning resident alien suspected of illegal activity, which could potentially overwhelm an already burdened system. Furthermore, he believed it contradicted previous rulings where aliens seeking initial entry were denied such protections because they had not yet established any connection with the country. In his view, Mrs. Plasencia’s short absence did not warrant her being treated as if she never left at all; instead, she should be considered akin to an initial entrant given her alleged engagement in smuggling activities during her brief departure.