In the 1962 case Rosenberg v. Fleuti, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a lawful permanent resident who had left and then returned to the United States after a brief visit abroad. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to deport Claudio Fleuti, an immigrant from Switzerland living in California, on grounds that he was homosexual - which at that time was considered as "psychopathic personality," making him ineligible for admission into the country under immigration law. However, Fleuti argued his short trip to Mexico did not constitute as leaving the country according to Section 101(a)(13) of Immigration and Nationality Act because it wasn't intended meaningfully interrupt his residency status. The court agreed with Fleuti's interpretation stating that Congress didn’t intend for every departure no matter how brief or casual would subject an alien legally admitted for permanent residence to reentry provisions of enacted law.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosenberg v. Fleuti, Justice Clark argued that Congress had clearly intended to exclude all aliens who were homosexual from entering the United States under immigration law. He believed that this exclusion applied regardless of whether or not an individual was aware of their inadmissibility at the time they sought entry into the country. In his view, any departure from U.S soil by a non-citizen should be considered as leaving with intent to return and thus subject them to inspection upon re-entry even if it's brief and innocent in nature. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “entry” which exempted Fleuti’s case on grounds that his departure was not meaningfully interruptive due its short duration and casualness.