In the case of United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Italian immigrant named Accardi who was facing deportation due to alleged associations with organized crime. The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had not followed its own procedures when it denied his appeal without providing a hearing or considering evidence on his behalf, as required by their regulations. Instead, they appeared to have acted under direct influence from then-Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr., who had publicly labeled him for deportation before any formal decision was made by BIA. This violation of procedural due process led to a landmark ruling which established that government agencies are bound by their own rules and regulations until they are officially changed or repealed.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus was an overreach of judicial authority and interfered with executive branch discretion in immigration matters. He contended that there was no legal basis for the court to intervene in administrative decisions unless there were clear violations of constitutional rights or statutory provisions, neither of which he believed occurred in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could review discretionary actions by administrative agencies based on subjective interpretations of fairness or justice rather than established law. In his view, such interference would undermine effective administration and potentially lead to inconsistent application of laws and regulations.