The U.S. Supreme Court case Tom We Shung v. Brownell, Attorney General, et al., 1953 involved a Chinese immigrant who was denied entry into the United States on the grounds that he had not complied with certain procedural requirements under immigration law. The petitioner argued that his exclusion from the country was unlawful because it violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He also claimed that he should have been allowed to enter as an American citizen since his father was born in Hawaii when it became a territory of America and thus acquired citizenship status. However, both lower courts ruled against him stating that there were no constitutional violations in denying him entry and upheld his deportation order issued by immigration authorities based on non-compliance with legal procedures for admission into America. Upon appeal to Supreme Court, they declined to review this decision citing lack of jurisdiction over matters related to discretionary relief granted or withheld by administrative agencies like Immigration Service unless there is substantial evidence showing abuse of discretion or violation of constitutional rights which wasn't proven convincingly in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Tom We Shung v. Brownell, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to uphold principles of justice and fairness in immigration law. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Shung should have been allowed to present his case before a judge, rather than being summarily deported without due process based on an administrative order. They contended that such a procedure violated basic constitutional rights and protections afforded to all individuals within U.S territory, regardless of their citizenship status. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant immigration statutes which led them to conclude that Mr.Shung had no right to judicial review or relief from deportation under any circumstances whatsoever.