In the 1901 case of Lee Lung v. Patterson, Chinese immigrant Lee Lung challenged his deportation order on grounds that he was a resident merchant and thus exempt from the Geary Act's provisions requiring all Chinese laborers to possess certificates of residence or face deportation. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that as per evidence presented in lower courts, Mr. Lung had given up his mercantile status by engaging in manual labor for more than a year after arriving in America and hence fell under the category of 'laborer'. Therefore, he was subject to regulations imposed by the Geary Act which required all Chinese immigrants classified as laborers to carry proof-of-residency certificates at all times or risk being deported.

The dissenting opinion in the Lee Lung v. Patterson case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of justice and fairness. The dissent pointed out that Lee Lung had been a resident of the United States for over 20 years, during which time he had conducted himself as a law-abiding citizen. He left on a temporary visit to China, intending to return within two years but was prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond his control - an illness followed by lack of available transportation back to America due to war conditions in China. Despite this, upon his eventual return, he was denied entry based on laws enacted while he was away without any notice or opportunity for him to comply with them. The dissenting justices believed this treatment constituted an ex post facto application of immigration law and deprived Lee Lung of his property rights without due process – both violations under the Constitution.