In the 1910 case of Ong Chang Wing v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning immigration law and due process rights. The petitioner, Ong Chang Wing, was a Chinese immigrant who had been living in America for several years but left temporarily to visit China. Upon his return to the U.S., he was denied re-entry under an exclusion act that prohibited Chinese laborers from immigrating to America unless they could provide documentation proving their prior residence status - something which Mr. Wing did not possess. Mr. Wing argued that this denial violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process as he had not been given an opportunity for judicial review before being excluded from entry into the country where he resided and worked legally. The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr.Wing's argument ruling against him by stating that Congress has plenary power over immigration policy and can exclude aliens without violating constitutional protections of due process because those protections do not extend universally beyond citizens or people within its jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Ong Chang Wing v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a violation of constitutional rights. He contended that it is unconstitutional to deport someone based on an ex post facto law - a law applied retroactively, particularly one which criminalizes actions that were legal when originally performed. In this case, Ong Chang Wing had legally entered the U.S., but later laws made his entry illegal retrospectively and he faced deportation as a result. Harlan believed this violated Article I Section 9 of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from passing any ex post facto law. Moreover, he asserted that every person within U.S territory should be protected by its constitution regardless of their nationality or citizenship status; thus making it unlawful to deny anyone due process under Fifth Amendment protections simply because they are not citizens.