In the case of Sui v. McCoy, Insular Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands (1915), a Chinese merchant named Sui sought entry into the Philippines but was denied by customs officials who doubted his status as a merchant. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCoy, stating that while there may have been some irregularities in how Sui's case was handled, they were not significant enough to warrant overturning the decision made by immigration authorities. The court emphasized that it is within their discretion to determine whether an individual meets qualifications for admission and this determination should be respected unless proven clearly erroneous or arbitrary. This ruling reinforced the broad powers given to immigration officials in determining admissibility into U.S territories.

In the dissenting opinion for SUI v. MCCOY, INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Justice Holmes argued that the case should have been decided based on a strict interpretation of the law rather than an assessment of its fairness or morality. He believed that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether a particular law was just or unjust; instead, their role was simply to interpret and apply it as written. In this specific case involving customs duties in Philippines (then U.S territory), he disagreed with majority’s decision which exempted certain goods from taxation due to humanitarian reasons. For him, if Congress had intended such exemptions they would have explicitly stated so in legislation. This approach reflects his broader judicial philosophy known as legal realism - focusing on what laws actually say rather than what we might wish them to say.