In the case of Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. United States ex rel. Accardi (1954), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Accardi, an Italian immigrant facing deportation due to alleged ties with organized crime. The court held that even though he was not a citizen, Accardi still had rights under U.S law and deserved due process. The Board of Immigration Appeals had denied his appeal for suspension of deportation without providing any reason or explanation for their decision which violated administrative procedures act requirements for fair hearings. Furthermore, it was revealed that the Attorney General had already predetermined Accardi's guilt before his hearing took place - this prejudgment also violated procedural fairness norms as well as internal rules requiring independent judgment by board members on each case they hear.

In the dissenting opinion for Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Accardi, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect because it interfered with executive discretion in immigration matters. He contended that courts should not intervene in deportation decisions unless there is clear evidence of abuse or misuse of power by immigration authorities. In this case, he believed there was no such evidence and thus, the court had overstepped its boundaries by intervening in an administrative matter which falls under executive jurisdiction according to separation of powers principles enshrined in U.S constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential consequences resulting from judicial interference on discretionary actions taken by other branches of government.