In the 1923 case of United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an immigration matter involving a Russian immigrant named Boris Bilokumsky who was ordered to be deported by an immigration inspector due to his alleged involvement in anarchist activities. The court held that while there were no direct evidence linking him to such activities, circumstantial evidence could be used as basis for deportation if it sufficiently established reasonable grounds for belief in guilt. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for the majority opinion, stated that mere suspicion or conjecture is not enough and cannot justify deportation without solid proof or substantial evidence supporting such claims.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Brandeis and Butler, argued that the majority's decision to deport Bilokumsky was a violation of his constitutional rights. They contended that there was no substantial evidence proving he had been involved in anarchist activities or advocating for violent overthrow of the government - grounds on which deportation proceedings were based upon at that time under immigration law. The dissenters believed it was unjust to deport someone solely based on suspicion without concrete proof; they emphasized due process and protection against arbitrary governmental actions as fundamental principles of American jurisprudence. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on hearsay evidence from an unidentified informant whose credibility could not be assessed properly.