In the case of United States ex rel. Hintopoulos et ux. v. Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service (1956), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Hintopoulos who were facing deportation back to Greece due to their illegal entry into the country in 1945 under false names after fleeing from Communist forces during World War II. The court held that despite their unlawful entry, they had established a life for themselves over an extended period without any criminal record or other negative behavior which would warrant removal from the country. This decision was based on Section 19(c) of The Immigration Act which allowed for suspension of deportation if it could be proven that deporting them would result in "serious economic detriment" to immediate family members who are citizens or legally residing aliens. The ruling emphasized that each case should be considered individually rather than applying blanket rules regarding immigration status and length of residence within the United States.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Hintsopoulos et ux. v. Shaughnessy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service (1956), Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding deportation cases. He contended that the Court had overstepped its bounds by substituting its judgment for that of Congress and administrative agencies in interpreting immigration laws and policies. The justice believed this case should have been decided based on whether there was substantial evidence supporting the agency's findings rather than reevaluating those findings themselves - which he saw as an encroachment upon executive authority by judicial power contrary to separation of powers principle underpinning American constitutional system.