The U.S. Supreme Court case Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization v. Pedreiro in 1954 revolved around the issue of judicial review over deportation orders issued by immigration authorities. The respondent, a stowaway on an American ship who had been living in the United States for several years, was ordered to be deported back to Portugal without a hearing before an immigration judge based on his status as a stowaway under existing law at that time. He challenged this decision arguing it violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pedreiro stating that he was entitled to judicial review of his deportation order despite being classified as a stowaway because such classification did not exempt him from procedural protections afforded by administrative law or constitutional rights guaranteed under due process clause. This ruling significantly expanded access to courts for immigrants facing removal proceedings and established important precedent regarding legal protections available during these proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, Justice Reed argued that the majority's decision to allow judicial review of deportation orders was a departure from established legal principles and could lead to an influx of litigation. He contended that Congress had intended for administrative decisions in immigration matters to be final and not subject to court interference unless there were substantial constitutional issues at stake. According to him, allowing courts to review these decisions would undermine the authority of administrative agencies and potentially disrupt their operations by encouraging immigrants facing deportation orders to seek injunctions or other forms of relief in federal court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential impact on national security if courts were allowed wide latitude in reviewing immigration cases during times when control over entry into and exit from the country might be crucial.