In the 1923 case of Mahler et al. v. Eby, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision in an immigration law that allowed for deportation without judicial review or due process protections for non-citizens who were deemed to be anarchists or associated with anarchist organizations. The plaintiffs, five German nationals residing in Chicago, had been ordered deported by the Secretary of Labor under this provision after being identified as members of an organization advocating overthrowing government through force and violence. They challenged their deportations on constitutional grounds but were unsuccessful at both district court and appellate levels before appealing to the Supreme Court. The high court rejected their arguments that they were entitled to trial by jury before being deported and that Congress lacked authority to delegate such broad powers over deportation decisions to executive branch officials like the Secretary of Labor. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., held that these provisions did not violate due process because aliens have no inherent right against expulsion or deportation except as provided by statute; thus Congress could set conditions on their stay including requiring them not associate with certain groups.

In the dissenting opinion for Mahler et al. v. Eby, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the deportation of aliens based on their political beliefs was unconstitutional and violated principles of free speech and association. He contended that membership in a political organization should not be grounds for expulsion unless it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the individual had engaged in or intended to engage in illegal activities. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of "affiliation" with such organizations as overly broad and vague, potentially leading to abuses of power by immigration officials who might deport individuals based on mere suspicion or personal bias rather than concrete evidence. He also expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights given the lack of judicial review available to those facing deportation under these circumstances.