In the 1902 Supreme Court case, also known as Yamataya v. Fisher or The Japanese Immigrant Case, a young Japanese woman named Kaoru Yamataya was deported on grounds of being likely to become a public charge. She had arrived in Seattle from Japan and was detained by immigration officials who determined she would be unable to support herself financially. Her appeal argued that her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated because she wasn't given an opportunity for a fair hearing before deportation proceedings began. However, the Supreme Court ruled against her, stating that while immigrants are entitled to due process rights once they have entered U.S territory legally, these protections do not apply during initial entry inspections at ports of arrival. This decision established precedent for broad federal power over immigration policy and enforcement.

The dissenting opinion in the Japanese Immigrant Case of 1902 argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its boundaries by ruling on a matter that should have been left to Congress. The justices who dissented believed that immigration was an issue of national sovereignty and thus, it fell under the purview of legislative power rather than judicial review. They contended that if there were concerns about potential threats posed by immigrants, these should be addressed through legislation rather than court rulings. This perspective emphasized respect for separation of powers and cautioned against judiciary encroachment into areas reserved for other branches of government. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential violations to individual rights due to broad interpretations of governmental authority over immigration matters.