In the case of Lewis v. Frick, a British citizen named William Lewis was denied entry into the United States by Immigration Inspector Charles M. Frick on grounds that he was likely to become a public charge due to his physical condition and lack of means for self-support. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Frick, upholding his decision to deny Mr. Lewis's admission into the country based on immigration laws at that time which allowed officials such discretion if they believed an individual would be unable to support themselves financially or were physically incapable of earning a living upon arrival in America.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lewis v. Frick, United States Immigration Inspector, 1913 argued that the majority's decision to deport Mr. Lewis was unjust and not supported by sufficient evidence. The dissenting justices believed that there were serious doubts about whether Mr. Lewis had actually committed a crime involving moral turpitude - which was the basis for his deportation order under immigration law at that time - as he had never been convicted of such a crime in court. They also pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in testimonies against him, raising questions about their reliability and credibility. Furthermore, they expressed concerns over potential violations of due process rights because Mr. Lewis did not have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his own defense during immigration proceedings before being ordered deported.