In the 1924 case Nahmeh v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an immigration matter involving a Syrian immigrant named Elias Nahmeh who had been denied entry into the U.S. The Immigration Act of 1917 barred individuals from entering if they were found to have a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority." Nahmeh was deemed unfit for admission under this clause due to his alleged homosexuality. He appealed against this decision arguing that homosexuality did not fall within the scope of "constitutional psychopathic inferiority". However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld his exclusion and confirmed that homosexuality could be considered as part of “constitutional psychopathic inferiority”. This marked one of earliest legal instances where sexual orientation was used as grounds for discrimination in U.S immigration law.

In the dissenting opinion for NAHMEH v. UNITED STATES, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Nahmeh citizenship based on his political beliefs. He argued that while Nahmeh may have held views sympathetic to anarchism, there was no evidence he advocated or intended to engage in violence or unlawful activity. The justice believed that denying someone citizenship due to their political beliefs violated freedom of thought and expression principles fundamental to American democracy. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how these standards were applied; noting some citizens who held similar views were not stripped of their status while others like Nahmeh were denied it altogether. Thus, Justice McReynolds concluded that this case represented an unjust application of law and a violation of constitutional rights.