In the case of Tod, Commissioner of Immigration v. Waldman et al., 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court examined whether a child born in Canada to Russian parents who had not been naturalized as Canadian citizens could be denied entry into the United States under immigration laws that excluded individuals ineligible for citizenship due to their race or nationality. The court ruled in favor of Waldman and his family, stating that children born within British dominions (including Canada) were considered British subjects regardless of their parent's nationality status and thus eligible for American citizenship upon immigration. Therefore, they could not be barred from entering the country based on their racial or national origins.

In the dissenting opinion for TOD, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, v. WALDMAN et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to allow Waldman entry into the United States despite his previous deportation order. He argued that allowing Waldman re-entry would undermine immigration laws and regulations set in place by Congress. The justice believed that a person who had been previously deported should not be allowed back into the country without first obtaining permission from authorities as required by law. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within the Court's jurisdiction to overrule decisions made by immigration officials unless there was clear evidence of abuse of power or discretion on their part - which he did not believe existed in this case.