In the case of Marks v. Esperdy, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to immigration law and due process rights. The petitioner, a Hungarian national who had entered the United States as a refugee in 1956 was ordered for deportation after being convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. He challenged this order on grounds that he was not given adequate notice about his right to apply for suspension of deportation under Section 244(a)(5) of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court held that although there were procedural errors made by the Special Inquiry Officer during initial hearing, they did not amount to denial of due process since petitioner had an opportunity at subsequent hearings to apply for relief under INA but failed to do so. Therefore, it concluded that any error committed was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion for Marks v. Esperdy, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow an immigrant facing deportation to challenge their status in court undermined Congress' authority over immigration matters. The dissenters believed that this case should have been handled administratively rather than judicially, as per established procedures and laws governing immigration at the time. They contended that by allowing immigrants to seek a judicial review of their cases, it would create unnecessary delays in deportations and could potentially lead to abuse of process by those seeking only to prolong their stay in America illegally. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could interfere with administrative decisions made under congressional statutes regarding immigration policy.