In the 1955 case NUKK et al. v. SHAUGHNESSY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE., the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to immigration law and due process rights of non-citizens. The petitioners were Estonian seamen who had entered the U.S illegally and sought asylum on grounds that they would face persecution if returned to their home country which was then under Soviet control. They challenged an order for their deportation arguing that it violated their right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment because they weren't given access to information used against them during proceedings before Immigration Service's Board of Special Inquiry (BSI). However, the court ruled in favor of Shaughnessy stating that since BSI is not a court but an administrative body performing executive functions, its procedures don't have to conform strictly with judicial standards; thus denying aliens' claim for full disclosure doesn't violate constitutional principles.

In the dissenting opinion for NUKK et al. v. SHAUGHNESSY, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to uphold principles of due process and fairness in immigration proceedings. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioners were denied their right to a fair hearing because they were not given an opportunity to present evidence or challenge government allegations against them before being ordered deported under Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. They contended that this violated constitutional guarantees of procedural fairness, as well as international law obligations under treaties like the United Nations Convention relating to Status of Refugees which prohibits returning refugees back into danger without proper examination and determination procedures in place first. Furthermore, they criticized how discretion over deportation decisions was left solely with administrative officials rather than independent judges who could provide more impartial review based on legal standards instead of political considerations or bureaucratic convenience.