In the 1911 case of Tang Tun v. Edsell, Chinese Inspector, a Chinese immigrant named Tang Tun challenged his deportation order issued by U.S. immigration officials on the grounds that he was a merchant and not a laborer as classified by them. The Supreme Court ruled against Tang Tun, upholding his deportation order. The court found that while there were discrepancies in how different witnesses described Tang's occupation (some said he was an employee or partner at various businesses), it ultimately fell to the immigration authorities to determine whether these activities constituted "labor" under existing laws regulating Chinese immigration at the time - which they did according to their interpretation of those laws. Therefore, despite presenting evidence suggesting he might be considered more of a merchant than laborer under some interpretations of law and testimony from others who knew him personally attesting to this fact, because Immigration had determined otherwise based on its own assessment and understanding of applicable regulations governing such matters then in force; Mr.Tun's appeal for relief from removal back to China was denied.

In the dissenting opinion for Tang Tun v. Edsell, Chinese Inspector, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a violation of due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He believed that Tang Tun should have been given an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses before being deported. The justice emphasized that even non-citizens are entitled to constitutional protections when they are on American soil. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of immigration law which allowed for deportation without judicial review or oversight from any court in such cases as this one involving alleged illegal entry into America by a foreigner claiming citizenship status through native-born parentage but unable to provide sufficient proof thereof at time of arrival inspection procedures conducted by immigration officials who then ordered his immediate expulsion back overseas based solely upon their own administrative findings rather than allowing him access first to legal counsel and fair trial proceedings within our nation’s established system of jurisprudence.