In the case of Synnott v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the petitioner, Synnott. The case centered around the petitioner's claim that he had been denied due process of law when he was denied entry into the United States. The petitioner, Synnott, was an Irish citizen who had applied for a visa to enter the United States. His application was denied by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on the grounds that he was an alien who had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Synnott argued that he had not been given a hearing before the INS denied his application, and that this violated his right to due process of law. The Supreme Court agreed with Synnott, ruling that the INS had violated his right to due process of law by denying his application without a hearing. The Court held that the INS must provide an alien with a hearing before denying his application for a visa, and that the alien must be given the opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The Court also held that the INS must provide the alien with a written statement of the reasons for the denial of his application. The ruling in Synnott v. Shaughnessy established that aliens have the right to due process of law when applying for a visa to enter the United States. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to protect the rights of aliens seeking to enter the United States.

In the Supreme Court case of Synnott v. Shaughnessy, Justice Douglas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider important aspects of immigration law and policy when ruling on this case. He noted that Congress had intended for immigrants to be able to appeal their deportation orders if they could demonstrate good moral character or other mitigating circumstances. The majority's decision, however, effectively denied these individuals any opportunity for relief from deportation by denying them access to judicial review of their cases. Furthermore, Justice Douglas argued that the government should not have been allowed to deport an individual without giving him notice or an opportunity for a hearing before doing so; such action was contrary both to due process and natural justice principles enshrined in our Constitution as well as international human rights standards. In conclusion, Justice Douglas believed that the majority's decision was wrongfully depriving immigrants of basic legal protections and urged his colleagues on the court to reconsider their position on this issue.